Really solid week with one giant blight on it. + $22,600 gross on 571,000 shrs. One 16k losing trade kept it from being the best week of the year. P/L monday to friday was: +5, +12, +1, -7, +11. Passed 6 figs on the year. Uneventful really except for SWM, just nice volatility and everything clicked along smoothly.
Grinding it out, day after day
- Thread starter lescor
- Start date
571,000 shares one side or RT? Thanks.
IB has a better short list, I can trade more products, they have a very good and well documented api that I need to run certain apps, I can convert funds to Canadian dollars easily and at a good rate, their commissions are competitive with most prop firms, they're a stable outfit that I feel comfortable holding a lot of cash at (so is Echo).
IB + prop leverage would be the ultimate trading firm imo.
IB + prop leverage would be the ultimate trading firm imo.
Lescor,
Can you speak a bit about the difference between viewing trading as a mathematical/technical endeavor vs a crowd psychology exercise? I find myself wavering between the two, sometimes emphasizing specific S/R, candlesticks and T/A formations at the expense of trying to understand what the crowd is doing, while other times I'm so focused on trying to view things as buyers, sellers, supply and demand that I miss obvious technical levels.
I guess the easy answer is that one needs to find a balance. And I understand that the underlying basis of T/A is the crowd psychology. But part of me suspects that you came to a point in your trading where the crowd psychology part had to be quantified into concrete execution strategies that could be auto-traded.
Is this the developmental point that one needs to arrive at in order to achieve consistent trading success? Does the same emphasis apply to your discretionary trading or do you compartmentalize the two approaches/views? I'd love to hear how the eventual balance that you came to evolved over time.
Can you speak a bit about the difference between viewing trading as a mathematical/technical endeavor vs a crowd psychology exercise? I find myself wavering between the two, sometimes emphasizing specific S/R, candlesticks and T/A formations at the expense of trying to understand what the crowd is doing, while other times I'm so focused on trying to view things as buyers, sellers, supply and demand that I miss obvious technical levels.
I guess the easy answer is that one needs to find a balance. And I understand that the underlying basis of T/A is the crowd psychology. But part of me suspects that you came to a point in your trading where the crowd psychology part had to be quantified into concrete execution strategies that could be auto-traded.
Is this the developmental point that one needs to arrive at in order to achieve consistent trading success? Does the same emphasis apply to your discretionary trading or do you compartmentalize the two approaches/views? I'd love to hear how the eventual balance that you came to evolved over time.
I'm completely befuddled... How can intraday reversion to mean work in this current market environment? It seems that a trend style strategy would work best for intraday with this current market...
Another counter intuitive issue... Lescor stated that he does not day trade the index futures market because it's an efficient market. Lescor stated that about 70% of his strategies are some form of reversion to mean. I would think that large cap stocks (i.e. GE) and the e-mini s&p (ES) would be taylor-made for reversion to mean, although the ES has mostly been in an intraday trend mode for the last few weeks.
I simply don't understand how a low liquidity stock has a better chance of reversion to mean on an intraday basis than an "efficient market" like the e-mini s&p... It seems that the run that occurred with SWM is more the rule than the exception with low liquidity or moderate liquidity stocks.
Any suggestions...????
Walt
Another counter intuitive issue... Lescor stated that he does not day trade the index futures market because it's an efficient market. Lescor stated that about 70% of his strategies are some form of reversion to mean. I would think that large cap stocks (i.e. GE) and the e-mini s&p (ES) would be taylor-made for reversion to mean, although the ES has mostly been in an intraday trend mode for the last few weeks.
I simply don't understand how a low liquidity stock has a better chance of reversion to mean on an intraday basis than an "efficient market" like the e-mini s&p... It seems that the run that occurred with SWM is more the rule than the exception with low liquidity or moderate liquidity stocks.
Any suggestions...????
Walt
by "Reversion to mean" is that the same as exposing divergences and spikes?Quote from jones247:
I'm completely befuddled... How can intraday reversion to mean work in this current market environment? It seems that a trend style strategy would work best for intraday with this current market...
Another counter intuitive issue... Lescor stated that he does not day trade the index futures market because it's an efficient market. Lescor stated that about 70% of his strategies are some form of reversion to mean. I would think that large cap stocks (i.e. GE) and the e-mini s&p (ES) would be taylor-made for reversion to mean, although the ES has mostly been in an intraday trend mode for the last few weeks.
I simply don't understand how a low liquidity stock has a better chance of reversion to mean on an intraday basis than an "efficient market" like the e-mini s&p... It seems that the run that occurred with SWM is more the rule than the exception with low liquidity or moderate liquidity stocks.
Any suggestions...????
Walt