Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

TheNegotiator

A Very Very Very Clear Example of Context and Why to Not Always Fade the ES

Recommended Posts

As I hope more and more people will be realising the importance of context, I hope it was fairly obvious to most what was going on yesterday in the ES and I am in fact wasting my time in pointing it out. Given all the context heading into the ECB, fading the market should have been out of the question for traders. The ES had balanced and balanced and balanced some more with the VPOC (volume point of control - price at which the most contracts have been traded) moving closer to the middle as the balance progressed. The fact that breakouts often originate from the middle of balances shouldn't have gone unnoticed. Then after the ECB (even if you had no idea of what was said or the implications) on RTH open with the market gapping up (range and session) and immediately driving away from the gap not into it, it was very, very clear that it was a market to not fade and go with. See chart below.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=31142&stc=1&d=1347019921

2012-09-07.thumb.jpg.1e424c8701aa3aa7d2200afe2372be39.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I hope more and more people will be realising the importance of context, I hope it was fairly obvious to most what was going on yesterday in the ES and I am in fact wasting my time in pointing it out. Given all the context heading into the ECB, fading the market should have been out of the question for traders. The ES had balanced and balanced and balanced some more with the VPOC (volume point of control - price at which the most contracts have been traded) moving closer to the middle as the balance progressed. The fact that breakouts often originate from the middle of balances shouldn't have gone unnoticed. Then after the ECB (even if you had no idea of what was said or the implications) on RTH open with the market gapping up (range and session) and immediately driving away from the gap not into it, it was very, very clear that it was a market to not fade and go with. See chart below.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=31142&stc=1&d=1347019921

 

I'm pretty sure I understand what you mean, but I think you need to clarify your statement a little . . . Pressumably you mean not to fade the up moves? Fading down moves, on the other hand, seems like the ideal scenario.

 

For instance, having identified the direction of the trend for the day using techniques such as you describe, then why not fade every significant pullback?

 

The only issue here is that some trend days (such as yesterday's) never really contain the kind of significant retracements that can provide low risk entries. I think that this then becomes a psychological issue - can I bear to sit on the sidelines and watch a market go parabolic without me on board, just because some specific entry opportunity hasn't presented itself?

 

As far as trading the ES in higher timeframes goes, range expansions such as yesterday's tend, for the most part, not to exhibit significant follow through. So fading the ES at yesterday's close would not have been a completely foolish thing to do, though when we're in a clear uptrend fading an expansion to the downside would be a much safer bet.

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only issue here is that some trend days (such as yesterday's) never really contain the kind of significant retracements that can provide low risk entries. I think that this then becomes a psychological issue - can I bear to sit on the sidelines and watch a market go parabolic without me on board, just because some specific entry opportunity hasn't presented itself?

 

Exactly. So if you really want to get involved and believe me you absolutely do not have to (ES does not exhibit this kind of trading activity that often), then you try to get in on the best pullback you can where you can place risk the other side of what you judge would provide some sort of decent support should a deeper retracement take place. Ideally, the sooner you spot these days the better and then (at least I feel this way sometimes) it is a controlled leap of faith!

 

As far as trading the ES in higher timeframes goes, range expansions such as yesterday's tend, for the most part, not to exhibit significant follow through. So fading the ES at yesterday's close would not have been a completely foolish thing to do, though when we're in a clear uptrend fading an expansion to the downside would be a much safer bet.

 

To me, the use of range expansion is slightly misleading in this sense. Range by definition is high to low. However, trading ranges are usually seen as brackets - i.e. a balance in which two-way auctions happen. Specifically in this case, saying it's a range expansion re:the balance range I have outlined is not yet certain and potentially quite inaccurate. To me, a range expansion is just that. It pushes a little further then reverts to it's originally balance activity. The whole point of my post was that I believe that considering everything and at least for yesterday, the likelihood is that we are not balanced anymore.:2c:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Negotiator,

 

Thanks for replying.

 

Exactly. So if you really want to get involved and believe me you absolutely do not have to (ES does not exhibit this kind of trading activity that often), then you try to get in on the best pullback you can where you can place risk the other side of what you judge would provide some sort of decent support should a deeper retracement take place. Ideally, the sooner you spot these days the better and then (at least I feel this way sometimes) it is a controlled leap of faith!

 

My ability to identify trending or range-bound days early in the session is very poor. This is something that I wish to work on developing. Each day you post charts in the e-mini thread showing volume distributions - if I were to pick up a good general book on MP, would this enable me to understand how you are using these and the associated terminology, or are you employing a more specific approach with MP?

 

To me, the use of range expansion is slightly misleading in this sense.

 

This is just due to a different use of the word 'range', I think. By 'range expansion', I just mean a day with a high-to-low range that is significantly larger than it's predecessors. I'm using the term in the way that an author like Larry Williams or Toby Crabel might.

 

Cheers,

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My ability to identify trending or range-bound days early in the session is very poor. This is something that I wish to work on developing. Each day you post charts in the e-mini thread showing volume distributions - if I were to pick up a good general book on MP, would this enable me to understand how you are using these and the associated terminology, or are you employing a more specific approach with MP?

 

Should do. Read Markets in Profile and Mind Over Markets. Above all you should ask me or others in the e-mini thread if there's something you don't get. More than happy to help.

 

Working out what it might do in the session is a synthesis of technical and macro information plus experience of being smashed for six when trying to do certain things. If you have a framework to work with, recognising market behaviour is quicker imho. Market profile and auction principles outlined in the two books will give you a solid foundation for that framework. Then, you have to apply your various strategies within this framework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should do. Read Markets in Profile and Mind Over Markets. Above all you should ask me or others in the e-mini thread if there's something you don't get. More than happy to help.

 

Working out what it might do in the session is a synthesis of technical and macro information plus experience of being smashed for six when trying to do certain things. If you have a framework to work with, recognising market behaviour is quicker imho. Market profile and auction principles outlined in the two books will give you a solid foundation for that framework. Then, you have to apply your various strategies within this framework.

 

Thanks Negotiator!

 

BlueHorseshoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.