Trading Volatility Breakouts in the Emini (ES) Futures Contract

[NatStewart 10]

What is the volatility breakout trading strategy?

 

My original introductory article on volatility breakouts can be found here. Make sure to read it if you are not familiar with this short-term trading concept, as it will get you up to speed for this current article. As I suggested in the original article, recent market conditions will have a large impact on the strategy’s profitability. In fact, if the correct market conditions are not present, volatility breakout trading strategies will not be very profitable.

 

 

 

Many people are introduced to the concept of volatility breakout trading through the work of Toby Crabel, who called the concept, “the opening range breakout” in his book that was published 20+ years ago. Crabel Identified two patterns that became quite popular: The “NR7” pattern and the “Inside day NR4” pattern. Crabel’s NR7 strategy is simply to take an opening range or volatility breakout signal after a day where the trading range (highest price today - lowest price today) is less than the range of each of the past six days. The Inside-day NR4 pattern is to take a breakout signal after an inside day (Today’s high is less than yesterday’s high, and today’s low is greater than yesterday’s low) that is also the smallest range day of the past three days.

 

While these patterns were very innovative for their time, my research indicates that in stock index futures, the basis for this pattern (The notion that volatility cycles up and down in a semi-predictable way) is more difficult to use and less effective than it once was. I do not see any real edge in either the NR7 pattern or the Inside-day NR4 pattern over the past 10 years in the emini (ES) futures or the SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY).

 

 

I am also not a huge fan of patterns that use a ton of “If - then” type logical statements. I know some traders who are effective with this method, however I have found that it is too easy to over-optimize these complex patterns. My approach is to distill a trading idea down into its simplest, most conceptual form, because this is what I have found works best in real time trading.

What setups are currently significant when trading volatility breakouts in stock index futures? Here are three factors that I believe are very important:

 

• 
  The overall volatility level of the market. Volatility breakouts work best in markets that are frothy with speculation and fear, and work poorly during periods when volatility is compressed and declining. You might be surprised to learn that “typical bull market conditions” are not the best time to take long-side volatility breakouts. This is because bull markets often see volatility and daily trading ranges compress, which is bad for this strategy. My approach is set a threshold level for recent volatility and ignore setups when volatility is below this level.

 

• 
  The opening price relative to yesterday’s close (known as a price gap). Many people believe that because markets now trade almost continuously, price gaps (When measured by day-session hours) are not relevant to stock index trading. This is false. Where the market opens relative to yesterday’s close has been and continues to be particularly relevant when trading volatility breakout strategies. My general observation is that volatility breakouts work best when the opening gap is in the direction of the breakout signal. For example, a large gap up is good for a long-side volatility breakout.

• 
  Where the current price is relative to the recent trading range. This can be measured in a number of different ways. One of my favorite methods is to look at where the price closed today as a percentage of the recent “X” day’s trading range. I cover this concept using a one trading day range in

this article, however the idea can be extended to cover longer periods of time. My general observation here is that Volatility breakouts work best when they are “contradicting” the recent price behavior of the market. In other words, an upside volatility breakout works best when price is coming off of a relatively low close, as can be seen in the chart examples I selected.

 

Volatility breakout strategies have not only been effective in terms of total profits, they have also offered solid diversification benefits. It would surprise many to learn that this trading strategy really cleaned up in 2008, a year when the S&P 500 was down around 40%.

 

 

If there is a catch to this strategy, it is that volatility breakouts are best, “left on the shelf” until the correct market conditions are present. However, if you learn to utilize the three factors I have mentioned above (market volatility, the morning price gap, and the swing position of the market), it might become one of your favorite trading strategies - just as it is for me.

 

Good Trading

[BlueHorseshoe 10]

WARNING: Volatility Breakouts are not a viable strategy for the ES in any timeframe. It's too heavily mean reverting. Trying to promote this as a valid concept for the ES suggests an ignorance of the way this market behaves, probably because the author has not carried out any sort of basic data analysis for this instrument.

 

On a swing basis from a daily chart you can even get a decent return on an account by fading volatile breakouts in the ES.

 

I cannot be more categorical about this: do not try and trade volatility breakouts in the ES.

 

BlueHorseshoe

[NatStewart 10]

I have been conducting empirical analysis on stock index futures for about 12 years on time frames ranging from intra-day to multi-month. My data and experience suggests you are wrong over a day-hold time horizon.

 

Regardless, your tone and lack of common civility do not speak well of you and indeed verges on libel. From this point forward I will only engage those who address me with common courtesy. Thanks.

[NatStewart 10]

Here is a bit of additional information for anyone interested using data from 8/1998 to 9/2012. Please note what we are doing here is looking at a market tendency, not a complete trading system or strategy. I have constructed a table that looks at the the close-to-close (day session) return in the ES contract, and then compares it to results after a +10, +15, and +20 point volatility breakout. I then compare it to a +10 volatility breakout that occurs after a +10 point gap up.

 

 

What emerges is a reasonably consistent pattern. Returns improve for the remainder of the day as price moves away from the open. The last column displays results for a +10 breakout combined with a +10 gap. This last pattern actually demonstrates a very high average return for an intra-day strategy, and a very high level of statistical significance. Note, a price gap was number two on my list of factors that influence volatility breakout returns in the article above.

 

But you don't really have to take my word for it. Here is a very nice academic study that includes backtested results on a specific volatility breakout strategy applied to stock indexes.

 

Intraday Share Price Volatility and Leveraged ETF Rebalancing by Arthur Rodier, Edgar Haryanto, Pauline Shum, Walid Hejazi :: SSRN

 

In the paper they use a 2% breakout threshold, and look to enter at times between 2:15 and 2:45pm. They even have an interesting rationale for why it works (Leveraged ETF re-balancing). Regardless, their rationale is in my opinion not needed. The basic strategy is a refined volatility breakout approach, and such approaches worked before leveraged ETF's became popular.

 

Now, it is a bit ironic that this first article here is on volatility breakouts in stock index futures. Most of my index trading does indeed use mean reversion principles. In fact, I have an article on a mean reversion approach to trading stock index ETF's coming out in the December issue of Active Trader Magazine. If you are interested, pick up a copy. Also, that second article I linked to in the article documents mean reversion principles in stock index ETFs.

 

Now as I suggested above, I'm not all into treating people like trash just because we are not looking each other in the eye. I am always looking for new ideas and productive approaches, and worthwhile discussion - but lets be professional and keep it civil.

[wrbtrader 10]

WARNING: Volatility Breakouts are not a viable strategy for the ES in any timeframe. It's too heavily mean reverting. Trying to promote this as a valid concept for the ES suggests an ignorance of the way this market behaves, probably because the author has not carried out any sort of basic data analysis for this instrument.

 

On a swing basis from a daily chart you can even get a decent return on an account by fading volatile breakouts in the ES.

 

I cannot be more categorical about this: do not try and trade volatility breakouts in the ES.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

Although the author (NatStewart) doesn't seem to impressed by "volatility breakouts" in general nor impressed by specific volatility breakout strategies by others via phrases like...

 

* more difficult to use and less effective.

 

* I do not see any real edge.

 

* I have found that it is too easy to over-optimize these complex patterns.

 

He does imply he has found his own version of a volatility breakout and that its been working well for him. Therefore, if such is true, I don't think your going to be able to persuade him to stop using something that's profitable for him.

 

1) With that said, what experience do you have with his specific type of volatility breakout system for current types of market conditions for the Emini ES futures ?

 

2) How do you know that this author has not performed any basic data analysis for this instrument ?

 

By the way, the generic charts posted by the author doesn't qualify as a "volatility breakout" strategy in my opinion. It's more like a "range breakout" without the volatility in hopes that the entry interval develops expanding volatility after entry to allow for an exit as volatility shows up.

 

Last of all, the author's closing statement seems to imply to "use with caution" via the "left on the shelf" commentary until the correct market conditions are present.

 

If it works, keep using it.

[BlueHorseshoe 10]

Therefore, if such is true, I don't think your going to be able to persuade him to stop using something that's profitable for him.

 

I don't have any interest in dissuading the author/vendor from whatever he is doing. I do have an interest in trying to prevent new or naive traders from jumping in headfirst with something like this just because they read it on a forum.

 

The ES is possibly the most mean-reverting market going - trading range/volatility breakouts in this market does not constitute sound advice.

 

BlueHorseshoe

[BlueHorseshoe 10]

Regardless, your tone and lack of common civility do not speak well of you and indeed verges on libel.

 

No aspect of my post made any specific reference to you in combination with a putatively definite description of your actions or abilities. I used the word "probably". I made a series of generalised statements about the inefficiency of trying to trade volatility breakouts in the ES, and made my own recommendation to other traders.

 

Moreover, when you subscribe to a forum like this you implicitly consent to the possibility of having other members disagree with you. Sorry, I know it's not very good for your business, but that's just how it goes . . .

 

BlueHorseshoe

[wrbtrader 10]

I don't have any interest in dissuading the author/vendor from whatever he is doing. I do have an interest in trying to prevent new or naive traders from jumping in headfirst with something like this just because they read it on a forum.

 

The ES is possibly the most mean-reverting market going - trading range/volatility breakouts in this market does not constitute sound advice.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

You initial message made no reference about "trying to prevent new or naive traders from jumping in headfirst". .

 

In addition, the author himself made his own warnings or negative commentary about volatility breakouts that I've highlighted in my initial reply that you seem to have ignored. Instead you made a choice to be rude and disrespectful via making the "ignorance" commentary to the author along with the fact you make an unsubstantiated commentary with no proof that the author "probably because the author has not carried out any sort of basic data analysis for this instrument".

 

Therefore, I'll ask those specific questions again and you may choose again to ignore my questions:

 

1) With that said, what experience do you have with his specific type of volatility breakout system for current types of market conditions for the Emini ES futures ?

 

2) How do you know that this author has not performed any basic data analysis for this instrument ?

 

Also, as I specifically stated myself in disagreement with the author, this is not a volatility breakout method nor a volatility method even though the author has labeled it as such. Further, you seem to imply that you yourself have experience with "volatility breakouts" and if that was the case you would have closely examined the charts to see that this is actually a "range breakout" system and not a volatility breakout entry signal method.

 

This method involves an entry system as a "range breakout" with an exit system that's dependent upon "volatility breakout" to reach whatever profit target the trader has designated. In contrast, a true volatility breakout system (differs from volume breakout) involves an entry system dependent upon "expanding volatility".

 

As for my own personal experience with volatility methods and volatility breakout methods involving specifically trading the Emini ES futures, there are hundreds out there that are dependent upon the entry signal being volatility based. I myself have profitably used "a few" for trading the Emini ES futures for several years prior to leaving the Emini ES for other trading instruments. Simply, when the volatility dried up in Emini ES...it was time to move on to a different trading instrument.

 

Note: I have studied (backtested and simulator traded) and traded with real money about 72 volatility methods as an entry signal and 15 of them were based upon volatility breakouts in many different trading instruments that includes the S&P 500 Emini ES futures.

 

Thus, as the author noted, there are many types of volatility breakouts that were highly profitable in 2008. I noted in an earlier message here at the forum that it was high profits (excellent trading conditions) for Emini futures traders (including the Emini ES) back in 2008 that carried into the first quarter of 2009. However, it has been "difficult" to maintain or match the same unusual profit levels since (e.g. smaller profit targets, less trade signals, less runners) the first quarter of 2009 especially since the record breaking number of money pulled out of the markets since. This has resulted in many Emini ES futures volatility traders and Emini ES futures volatility breakout traders shelving their methods in favor of switching (changing) from the Emini ES to trading other trading instruments that have excellent volatility (e.g. EuroFX 6E futures, Light Crude Oil CL futures, Brent Oil futures, Eurex DAX futures, Hang Seng HSI futures and many others) mainly because they wanted to maintain their profit levels or exceed it in comparison to trying to trade the Emini ES futures in today's market conditions.

 

Yet, there as still some volatility breakout methods profitable in trading the Emini ES futures even in current "low volatility" trading conditions that have been adapted for today's market conditions. Reality, the successful adaptation has been by veteran traders...not newbie traders.

 

Therefore, my warning to new traders getting into volatility trading, there are better choice trading instruments for such instead of trying it on the Emini ES futures as an inexperience trader of volatility or via any other trade method. Simply, I don't care what trading method someone is using even mean reverting..the Emini ES futures is the most advertised, most hyped trading instrument being shoved down the throats of new and naive traders regardless to the choice of trade method being used.

 

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand...volatility methods are designed for volatile trading instruments and most newbie traders can't even tell the difference between low volatility, normal volatility and high volatility price actions. That is the primary reason why newbie traders struggle with volatility breakouts or any type of volatility base trading method. It's not the method that's causing the problem. It's the trader that lacks the experience to know when to use a volatility breakout method versus when not to use the method because the trader doesn't have the ability to recognize that volatility has changed. :doh:

 

Regardless to the method (volatility, mean reverting or whatever)...trading the Emini ES futures is "one" of the toughest game in town. It is highly advertised by brokers, highly advertised by data vendors, aggressively traded by the pros (e.g. institutions) and one of the most discussed futures instruments at forums. Simply, newbies are trading against the best of the best. Good luck with that.

Edited November 1, 2012 by wrbtrader

[BlueHorseshoe 10]

1) With that said, what experience do you have with his specific type of volatility breakout system for current types of market conditions for the Emini ES futures ?

 

2) How do you know that this author has not performed any basic data analysis for this instrument ?

 

1) I once traded a volatility breakout in Brent Crude. It was when I first began trading, and I'd just read a Larry Williams book. This is the only time I have ever done this.

 

From September 2011 to July 2012 I faded volatility breakouts in the ES over a total of 23 trades. Though I am no longer doing this, the system I used has continued to be just as profitable as at the time that I employed it.

 

2) I am doubtful that the author has performed any kind of data analysis because I have, and my results completely contradict the description of market behaviour for this instrument which would need to be true in order for a breakout strategy like this to be effective. The ES simply isn't a breakout market; it's a mean-reverting market. I have, this afternoon, taken the the time (i.e. effectively wasted the time) to reproduce a simple test to demonstrate that what I am describing is correct, and will post these shortly.

 

As far as nomenclature is concerned, I too prefer the term 'range expansion' to 'volatility breakout'.

 

BlueHorseshoe

[BlueHorseshoe 10]

Here is a bit of additional information for anyone interested using data from 8/1998 to 9/2012.

 

Here we go . . .

 

Fading range expansions based upon a variable fraction (n) of the prior day's range. Exit is on the close. Here is the EL strategy code:

 

Inputs:
n(1);

Buy next bar at h+(n*range) stop;

Sellshort next bar at l-(n*range) stop;

Setexitonclose;

 

The table attached shows results when the fraction is varied (first page, first column) - as you can see from the net profit column, no variation on this was profitable.

 

BlueHorseshoe

TradeStation Strategy Optimization Report - @ES(D) Daily [CME] E-mini S&P 500 Continuous Contrac.pdf

[BlueHorseshoe 10]

This time the exit was on the close of the day after entry. The results are even worse with additional holding because the ES seldom exhibits any kind of follow through with these kinds of moves.

 

Results are attached.

 

BlueHorseshoe

TradeStation Strategy Optimization Report - @ES(D) Daily [CME] E-mini S&P 500 Continuous Contrac.pdf

[wrbtrader 10]

BlueHorseshoe,

 

The only commonality you guys have is the trading instrument. Not sure why you're comparing your data study to his data study when you two have different interpretations of "volatility breakout".

 

What's the range (dates) of your data results in comparison to the authors 1998 to 2012 ???

 

Your data results are via the "exact same" specific volatility breakout method as the author is using regardless to my opinion that the author entry method is not based upon a volatility breakout ???

 

(if not, why make the comparison via saying your info contradicts the author)

 

Also, the issue is not about volatility breakout versus mean reverting considering the author has made "no comparison". In fact, the author has been clear that if volatility is not there...shelve the method. I myself have stated to change from the Emini ES futures into something that's more volatile if the trader wants to continue using the same volatility breakout method. I also put emphasis that the Emini ES futures is not a suitable trading instrument for newbie traders regardless to the method being used.

 

Therefore, any veteran trader knows that when "volatility is low"...you fade the volatility breakout...something most newbie traders doesn't understand about changes in volatility levels.

 

On a side note, two of the best traders of the Emini ES futures (both institutional) at one particular firm since 2006...one is using a volatility breakout method and the other is using something that's mean reverting.

 

How's that possible now that we're making comparisons ?

 

Hint: The mean reverting trader is not entering at the same price (in opposite direction) of the volatility breakout trader. Yet, both are successfully (profitable) trading the same trading instrument called Emini ES futures.

Edited November 1, 2012 by wrbtrader

[wrbtrader 10]

1)

 

As far as nomenclature is concerned, I too prefer the term 'range expansion' to 'volatility breakout'.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

Hopefully I didn't explain myself incorrectly.

 

I am not saying that range breakouts (@ entry) and volatility breakouts (@ entry) are the same although in some price actions they both can occur at the exact same time. I'm saying that range breakouts are not dependent upon "volatility expansion". In contrast, volatility breakouts are dependent upon "volatility expansion".

 

Its not uncommon for traders that use and entry signal based upon range breakout (not volatility breakout) to exit the position based upon volatility expansion. Some of these traders in error will call their trade method a "volatility breakout" to imply they enter the trade via a volatility breakout.

 

The author's specific method in discussion involves a "range breakout" @ entry and a "volatility breakout" @ exit. In contrast, I myself have studied and traded "volatility breakouts" @ entry along with other types of trade methods (e.g. fading or mean reverting) that's dependent upon "volatility breakout" to setup the fade.

 

Simply, a good volatility breakout trader will also be a good fade trader. In fact, I've never met one that's not able to do the other. Also, they tend to know when to use one instead of the other. Yet, I don't know if the author is "also" using a fade method when he said the following...

 

...In fact, if the correct market conditions are not present, volatility breakout trading strategies will not be very profitable.

Edited November 1, 2012 by wrbtrader

[BlueHorseshoe 10]

BlueHorseshoe,

 

The only commonality you guys have is the trading instrument. Not sure why you're comparing your data study to his data study when you two have different interpretations of "volatility breakout".

 

What's the range (dates) of your data results in comparison to the authors 1998 to 2012 ???

 

Your data results are via the "exact same" specific volatility breakout method as the author is using regardless to my opinion that the author entry method is not based upon a volatility breakout ???

 

(if not, why make the comparison via saying your info contradicts the author)

 

Also, the issue is not about volatility breakout versus mean reverting considering the author has made "no comparison". In fact, the author has been clear that if volatility is not there...shelve the method. I myself have stated to change from the Emini ES futures into something that's more volatile if the trader wants to continue using the same volatility breakout method. I also put emphasis that the Emini ES futures is not a suitable trading instrument for newbie traders regardless to the method being used.

 

Therefore, any veteran trader knows that when "volatility is low"...you fade the volatility breakout...something most newbie traders doesn't understand about changes in volatility levels.

 

On a side note, two of the best traders of the Emini ES futures (both institutional) at one particular firm since 2006...one is using a volatility breakout method and the other is using something that's mean reverting.

 

How's that possible now that we're making comparisons ?

 

Hint: The mean reverting trader is not entering at the same price (in opposite direction) of the volatility breakout trader. Yet, both are successfully (profitable) trading the same trading instrument called Emini ES futures.

 

Hi Wrb,

 

I wasn't claiming to be testing the 'exact' same strategy that the author was. I'm more interested in data mining to support a general principle rather than the easily optimisable results of any specific entry method. I would suggest that the tests I attached would include within their entries any kind of breakout that the author might be discussing - it's hard to see how it could be otherwise. Can you explain to me how you think that what the author is discussing differs in any non-specific way from what I have tested?

 

RE: "Therefore, any veteran trader knows that when "volatility is low"...you fade the volatility breakout..."

 

Now what on earth does that mean? It's a contradiction in terms, surely? What is a 'low volatility volatility breakout' when it's at home? It sounds like you've been reading too much Lewis Caroll . . .

 

RE: shelve the method.

 

Ah yes, the old "it works until it doesn't" clause beloved of vendors the world over.

 

RE: one is using a volatility breakout method

 

I find that doubtful, but I can't state with any certainty that it isn't true. Given the nature of price behaviour in the ES, if this trader is trading breakouts successfully then he is not only a good trader, but has also succeeded in polishing a turd. I'll say it again: the ES is not a breakout type market.

 

BlueHorseshoe

 

ps. My tests covered 2002 to 2012 - the most recent ten years of data. Inside bar 1 min data was used. Spread and typical retail commissions were deducted, but no slippage. A single contract was traded.

[steve46 12]

What most often missing from discussions like this is a common context

 

That, it seems to me is why one person can suggest a strategy that they say works, when others say no....that won't work...

 

I trade both sides of the street....reversion to mean and breakout....depending on what the market gives me...the method is simple...taken from what I know to be a common frame of reference used by many of my colleagues....a simple daily chart with a restricted date range (attached) and a 130 min chart displaying a distribution (also attached)

 

I look for tests of the extremes on each.....and then act according to what the information shows me....in this case we see a range bound market at the top of a longer term dist...(the daily chart).....and the 130 shows me that price is at or near an area of previous demand (shown by a blue rectangle)....on tests of the lower boundary I am going to get long

 

and if the market shows me that particpants are interested in marking it up...I am "going with" that move...knowing the odds favor continuation....if not, I am looking at how price acts on shorter time frames....and the reversal pattern is very easy to recognize...(because volume comes in to confirm it)...

 

The third chart show a behavior that is becoming quite common and that is, a trend move that starts during the overnight market.....allowing knowledgable participants to get on board early (I call it pre-positioning). When you're right it really pays you well...

 

by the way, for me 10 year data histories mean nothing...my world is 100-400 data points at a time maximum...I know that many of my peers are doing the same...so as long as it works (as long as it gets me on the same page as they are) I am going to use that approach....

[wrbtrader 10]

* I wasn't claiming to be testing the 'exact' same strategy that the author was.

 

That's exactly my point...why bother announcing your results are different than his results when you knew you didn't even share the same method ideal (volatility versus range).

 

* Can you explain to me how you think that what the author is discussing differs in any non-specific way from what I have tested?

 

The author method involves "range breakouts". He in error believes its a "volatility breakout" via specific market conditions (he did not disclose those specific conditions). I don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand the difference between your test results versus his test results. :rofl:

 

As a reminder, the author is not comparing volatility breakouts to mean reverting. You are for whatever reasons suitable to you.

 

* "Therefore, any veteran trader knows that when "volatility is low"...you fade the volatility breakout...".

 

Now what on earth does that mean? It's a contradiction in terms, surely?

 

You've implied you've tested, studied and traded "volatility breakouts". You've also specifically used the "fade them" term. Therefore, I will assume you know when your fades are performing well in comparison to when your fades are not performing well.

 

I'll let you do the math on that understanding without my help.

 

* shelve the method.

 

Ah yes, the old "it works until it doesn't" clause beloved of vendors the world over.

 

If you want to continue using a method that's not profitable when you can use a different method that's profitable...that's your choice. Actually and oddly, I've been meeting more traders lately that use different strategies for different types of market conditions. Yet, oddly, they continue hammering at a method that's not suitable for a particular type of market condition instead trying to milk something that's suitable for a particular type of market condition.

 

Ah yes, the old saying..."“There's none so blind as those who will not listen.”

 

* I find that doubtful, but I can't state with any certainty that it isn't true.

 

I'll cut you some slack on that and we'll talk about it again when you get more actual real money trading experience with volatility breakouts. By the way, I have never doubted the trading of others when I watch them trade in person. Thus, if they say they are trading "primarily volatility breakouts" while I'm peeking over their shoulders...I believe him. If the guy sitting in the next roll in front say he's trading "primarily via a mean revert system"...I believe him too.

 

* I'll say it again: the ES is not a breakout type market.

 

Currently, volatility breakout methods do not perform well on Emini ES futures. Therefore, I will say it again as did the author...don't apply volatility breakouts if specific market conditions do not exist. If you have problems in understanding that and think its vendor mumbo jumbo, you won't get any sympathy from me when you show up at Traderslaboratory to announce "it doesn't work now".

 

Yet, have there been profitable years in applying volatility breakouts to trading the S&P 500 Emini ES futures ???

 

Yes in 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006 (May - July), 2007 (June - August), 2008, 2009 (Jan - March), 2010 (April & May), 2011 August - early October and 2012 (May - early June). By the way, I do not know when volatility will return on a consistent basis but I do know its not there now for the Emini ES futures.

 

Note: The above years that I don't mention specific months implies that the majority of the year was good. Also, most here know that I preach consistently that trade signals is just one chapter of a trading plan. Therefore, similar to the author, specific conditions will need to be in place to prompt me to venture into trading the Emini ES futures.

 

I do not recommend Emini ES futures as a place to get their feet wet to newbie traders via any trade method.

Edited November 1, 2012 by wrbtrader