Search results

Losing big is not yet a guarantee of winning big. First is possible without second and second without first. Also what matters is if you're net profitable after your losses and profits are summarized.

Yes, that's more or less what I mean. Intuition is basically knowledge, but we simply lack proper tools to objectively use intuition. If those tools were developed, abilities of reading subliminal knowledge would greatly improve and we get access to much more "processing power" of our brain.

Yes and go with the trend. And drop that CL... play the real big boys toys: Euro and ES! :D

Good luck, Surf! Cut your losses, ride your winners! :)

If you ever did sports it can be a good analogy. You exercise a lot without any noticeable results for quite a long time. Then suddenly realize that what was so hard for you is not anymore, sometimes so easy that you don't even notice how you do it. It's like that in any skill. Just relax and...

OP's chart looks very nice and tradable. And "nonsense" is "barb wire" in Brooks terms, which he recommended NOT to trade. :)

Right. Capital preservation first, then profits. First you learn to trade and not lose consistently. Then it's just a small step away from being consistently profitable. After that it's a matter of trading size if you want better dollar figures. Easier to do than increase number of setups/skill...

Not apology of course. Just a month of screen time is really nothing.

One thing for sure: learning to day trade requires a lot of deliberate practice. Years most likely. Having a good mentor may help of course, but still a serious work. Not something many people imagine: sit at the PC make some nice bucks and go play golf. :)

Higher VIX I heard? :) Agree that when mass media gets very bullish it's likely time to sell. But still better with some actual timing, not blindly.

Believe me, neither of you produce the move you both hope for when enter a trade. :)

Big moves are still produced by the big boys. We are not interested in the noise, it's those moves we want. So watching big boys actions makes the most sense. Also, AFAIK, majority of noise volume are still banks MM activity and HFT lately, not retail guys playing with bucket shops.

I still doubt even total volume of trades made by retail traders at all constitutes serious percentage.

Would be hard to impose such laws on FX since it's not any exchange, but fragmented network of liquidity pools all over the world. Insider may trade using some off shore account and not be under jurisdiction of the law. Even play through some crappy spread betting companies registered somewhere...

Nope. :) Those small moves are mostly banks churning the volume (as their edge is not directional, but rather market-making mostly, they suck overall in directional trades) and algos. Forget "retail traders" in major FX pairs. We don't mean anything there, especially considering we all...

That's why TA is far superior to anything else (except inside from ECB/Fed maybe, but that edge is unavailable to most for obvious reasons). You see what really happens, what big boys do, buy or sell, not try to guess the actions of top players.

Of course not based on CNBC, but their own analysis. Which doesn't change the fact large players heavily dominate FX, not retail.

SWFX pool alone has liquidity of like 150-200MM per side not further than a single full pip away. Now combine it with other pools and calculate how far 1B notional trade would push the market. Of course in reality it's never a million 100K lots going in the same trade exactly.

Probably if we measure quantity of traders. But that's completely irrelevant to market action, because only those players who really move the market, matter. And in FX those are mainly top banks then corporations, which do a lot of international business, like VW and like that. Doubt retail...

Doubt even 5% of total turn over in FX and major futures, such as ES, FESX and FI instruments.