Search results

Doesn't AMP and the X_Trader transaction based pricing model fit this?

No, because we do not have the ridiculousness of the 1998-2000 era dot.com bubble and mass amounts of dumb money fueling it.

These margin requirements are totally insane. It's like 5x exchange minimums.

Also, OP, if you're trading S/R, where are they on your charts?

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. * Beginner trader. * Starts with CL. * 2 lots. * Probably undercapitalized. * Just buy support and sell resistance! What could go wrong?

In ES or similar? You're but a drop in a small ocean of liquidity. You aren't being targeted specifically.

Okay well if you were referring to your trades as being "challenged" meaning they consistently go against you, find out why that is. Surely if you had taken a more patient entry in 100% of those cases then 100% of the time they wouldn't have gone against you so much. Algos, pro traders, etc...

Pretty sure this is potentially classified under money laundering or something similar somewhere. It comes to my mind as having read about specifically or theoretically (maybe even on ET), I just can't remember the place. At the minimum the SEC/CFTC might take interest if it's done en masse.

Yeah who needs risk management and limits. It'll always "come back," right? Until it doesn't.

Do you use market profile? Volume profile? What timeframe are you trading? Just because markets don't trend like they used to doesn't mean a: you cannot trade these markets, or b: there aren't trends out there (hint: spreads, look into them).

And there you go - the reason they most likely won't become random. If anything massive mechanization of everything that is dependent on I/O from the market would probably result in feedback loops, large oscillations, or clamped down highly predictable behavior. All of those present...

MS is shorting this for the same reason we all want to short it: It's an otherwise insignificant stock assigned ultra-hype by an irrational hat-tip-to-2000 bullshit market. That being said, this is probably a very crowded trade and the powers that be are always about fucking over the most...

volpunter, relax man. Robert Morse is a sponsor and has generally been helpful around the forum. I don't see the big issue if he tries to drum up a little business from time to time as long as it's not overbearing and 100% of the time.

Why pay for exercise to utilize the option to buy something at a price higher than it's selling for at that moment? They can likely go buy the same thing in after hours for a better price.

Are the majority of people in here mainly trading CME products? I would have figured everyone was trading both CME and ICE when it comes to Ag.

I find that it can even vary by session as well. I notice that in the Asian and European sessions, CL is more tightly correlated with DX and 6E than it is during the day session. This of course probably has to do with greater volume in FX futures during those times.

What is this? A DOM for ants?! Anyways, I'm of the opinion the vast majority of any large/outlier sizes seen have other non-obvious motives at play. I always assume it's a fake out, even if it gets filled, as unless someone wants to get in or out of something in a real hurry for a rare reason...

A lot of times it's pretty difficult to know chop from real action. But I know that there are tools for indicating where chop most likely is, and I use them: volume profile and market profile. Unless I see a good setup, I tend to only want to trade outside the value area either expecting...

He's talking about having his original OCO group updated to account for the position partially closed. OP: no, TWS does not do this. Either do it manually, use an interface that can, or use 2 original orders when putting on the position.

Sure I understand that, but MDP 3.0 is going to make your life hard. Additionally, why use a less relevant metric like a "tick?" A tick could mean anything, volume wise - although it usually means onesey, twosey stuff. Volume means volume which has arguably much more value than a tick. I...