Baron,
>Although I'll be the first to admit that L2 can be misleading at times, the other indicators are not much
>better. The saying that charts and T&S are "reality" is extremely flawed, in my opinion.
We disagree, as I think both charts and T&S are better because they are real and L2 is a poker game. And by that I mean they are what actually happened. L2 is about what might happen, should happen, could happen, probably won't happen, but not what has happened.
>If they were reality, then there would not be terms like "erroneous prints" and "false breakouts".
I don't think a few erroneous prints negates the reality of the overwhelming majority of information in the T&S window. Regarding false breakouts, "false" or "real" or somewhere in between, that's what happened, and that's what the chart shows. Again, like prints they're not 100% perfect but probably not too far off.
>you can base your medthodology strictly on charts and T&S, and still get manipulated and burned on a regular basis by
>other market participants.
Absolutely agree with you here. I never suggested that one base their methodology strictly on those two factors. I currently trade all Nas thru ECN's, and regularly refer to L2 screens to see the ECN participants and where they sit in relation to the inside bid/ask. Also I like to see who's the ax and how they're impacting the price movement. So I'm not completely against L2
I just have trouble with the L2 share sizes, from both mm's and ECN's as they are so blatantly false and non-representative of the participants intentions. Aside from mm's often showing 100 shares and then endlessly refreshing, there are also large offers/bids, just outside the inside, regularly put up to panic people and then quickly withdrawn as the mm's or ECN's had no intention of buying or selling those shares. As I said, an interesting poker game...
In summary, I use L2 for certain things, and I'm glad to have it, but for the most part I try not to let it's "noise" get to me.