Search results

Prudent risk management is not in and of itself and edge. For example - at the game of roulette there's no risk management scheme that will overcome the house's edge. If your strategy doesn't capitalize on elements of market behavior that are non-random to a degree that you can over come the...

One possibility - Define your initial risk on the trade. Take part at X multiples of that risk. Pull your stop to B/E then trail the stop on the remainder a certain amount. ATR functions work well for this. The ideal moving average length and ATR multiple can vary based upon your objective...

Did you trade it?

The trend is your friend. Lots of traders use something like a long term moving average 50 - 200 days to determine it. (Even traders who are multibillionaires.) Any 'long only' strategy has been very successful of late. Just using simple logic like 'buy the SPY @ any price - sell next bar @...

Mastering one trade setup and learning to manage it properly before adding another to the plan.

That would depend on your timeframe - but yes - a close above something like a 200 period MA.

I use a similar concept as KCalhoun in my trading. Is the market opening inside or outside of a composite value area? Range and volume are correlated. So, I pay attention to the pace of relative volume as well. When the market opens away from what has recently been perceived as value only one...

If you can only trade on the long side where you live - I'm going to second the vote for using a long term moving average as a filter. There are other ways to do it but that's a good starting point. I'm not saying that you can't ever go long in a correction or bear market. Short covering...

@tiddlywinks, this is great! You and I approach things in a similar manner. While I may not have articulated my thoughts well, I share your sentiment on differentiating globex and RTH. Obviously report days can be catalysts that create an imbalance due to new information entering the market...

Pretty cool. Looks like Kepler's fractals or the Serpinski's Triangles. Maybe it's because consciousness itself is fractal? Edgar Peter's had some cool stuff like this in his Fractal Market Anaysis book, If I recall correctly.

Tiddlywinks, yes - this is very similar to what I do. I call it relative volume. How is cumulative volume running compared to the average of the same half hour over a period of time? I was getting to that point before things got silly in here. You've got a spectrum of day types ranging from...

It's correlated on the same day. That's the whole point. There is nothing after the fact. I urge you to dig deeper and look at the relationship between volume at various points of the AM and the range for the ENTIRE session.

Yes, I don't see an average for when the NQ was at that price on that date. That is one date of 5046 dates. You're demonstrating absolutely nothing. Nor are you being helpful to answering the question at hand.

I've got one guy in here telling me that traders don't use math and that a correlation coefficient of > .60 isn't statistically significant despite any and every statistics professor on the planet teaching that it is. Then I've got another guy trying to pick apart a screenshot of a simple excel...

I've said nothing of the sort. It's 20 years of data. Don't be a clown. You're making a fool of yourself. The correlation is on a data set of daily data that spans two decades and has over 5000 data points. Are you refuting this fact?

It's 20 years of OHLC & V data for the NQ. Is there part of that that you can't comprehend or do you just not like being wrong?

A correlation coefficient is not new math. The NQ continuous contract price was at that level 20 years ago.

What is so puzzling about that? Any other diversions you like to make in the conversation? Are you questioning the fact that the correlation coefficient between the days volume and range in the NQ over the last 20 years is >.60? Please disprove that. Edit - I don't see an average. That's...

When do I or did I? I trade both and have for nearly 3 decades? You're absolutely correct about the expansion and contraction of volatility. This conversation has nothing to do with that. I'm talking about the same session. You aren't going to get very far out of the initial balance on < 1x...

smh... It's 20 years of OHLC & volume for the NQ. Why would I fabricate that? It's not like I'm sharing some state secrets here. But it's frightening to me how the group of you would pounce on a statistically significant mathematical observation over 20 years of data. I'm simply offering...