I think they're referring to point breakdowns. $20 vs $50
The NQ is volatile as shit. In addition, if you're a happy-go-lucky fader, you're not gonna wash out as quickly on the NQ. I assume it's because of the lack of liquidity.
Seriously, can anybody trade the ES?
- Thread starter ChkitOut
- Start date
I think they're referring to point breakdowns. $20 vs $50
The NQ is volatile as shit. In addition, if you're a happy-go-lucky fader, you're not gonna wash out as quickly on the NQ. I assume it's because of the lack of liquidity.
"ES, NQ and YM move with the market. I don't really it makes a difference which you trade. I choose ES due to liquidity."
except you don't "think"
given that YM has superior spread, which is a major cost issue for shorter timeframe traders, what possible reason would lead you to trade ES over YM ... UNLESS ... you trade significant size.
i trade up to 10 contracts, and have zero issues with YM liquidity.
YM is the "it" contract to trade for many people who don't actually understand math, expectancy, etc.
except you don't "think"
given that YM has superior spread, which is a major cost issue for shorter timeframe traders, what possible reason would lead you to trade ES over YM ... UNLESS ... you trade significant size.
i trade up to 10 contracts, and have zero issues with YM liquidity.
YM is the "it" contract to trade for many people who don't actually understand math, expectancy, etc.
I've never heard of the spread being a concern to anyone. What do you mean.
CBOT vs CME argument is 1 reason
I'm pretty sure whitster is referring to the granularity of the YM tic ... 1 = 1. As such, spreads are 1-based. 10 YM pts has 10 tics. Each tic capable of bid/ask and quotation. As whitster mentioned, math is non-issue.
If not whitster's meaning, I'll throw it in as a reason to consider YM. Granularity, coupled with the back and fill nature of the instrument, allows disciplined traders to fill at limit prices a high percentage of the time, without price trade-through. But it should be noted: since YM moved to Globex, slightly wider spreads, momentary, are more frequent, as is a need for price trade-through. OTOH, daily volume has increased.
Osorico
great post Whitser...question...when you say what you said here...have you traded 10 YM contracts "all in" and "all out"...either at market or limit?...no scaling in and out etc...I've been wanting to move over to YM but have not got anyone to confirm it could handle such "All in/all out" trades on the YM...I would be trading 4-10 YM contracts "all in" and "all out"...I know market orders would get filled...how much slippage?...do 10 YM limit orders to enter a position get filled?...look forward to your response...really great...thanks...
<i>"Any of you that claim the YM or NQ are easy compared to the ES have any proof for this?"</i>
Perhaps the better question is, "Does anyone who claims the ES is easy have any proof for this"?
Trade blotters = results are a little scarce in this site relative to how many ES traders claim to be killing it these days.
FWIW, I scratched out +8pts ES on eight turns today, none bigger than +3 point(handles) gain. Trading the exact-same setups in ER would have yielded +10 points(handles) on five turns
The difference? ER offered +3pt to +5pt swings in straighter fashion from entry. ES was ragged, as it usually is in low-volume sessions.
As rehashed many times in other threads before, the bid/ask spread of any symbol is irrelevant to trading. Unless someone consistently sells the low tick and also buys the high tick of a swing, they did not capture the bid/ask spread.
In other words, if the YM moves from 12500 to 12550 and one trader caught 12510 entry 12530 exit while another was 12512 entry 12542 exit, neither of them caught the bid/ask spread. Price action <b>and the bid-ask spread</b> kept going after they exited.
YM is perfectly fine to trade, but it offers zero advantage of ES. When ES moves $100 per contract up or down, YM likewise moves +/- $100 per contract in same stretch.
I think it was the TTM guys working with the CBOT who started that whole 10 ticks YM scale to hide stops in versus 4 ticks ES. In reality, when ES moves 4 ticks the YM moves ten. Stops placed inside either range get taken out accordingly over the course of 100 or 1,000 consecutive trade events.
Perhaps the better question is, "Does anyone who claims the ES is easy have any proof for this"?
Trade blotters = results are a little scarce in this site relative to how many ES traders claim to be killing it these days.
FWIW, I scratched out +8pts ES on eight turns today, none bigger than +3 point(handles) gain. Trading the exact-same setups in ER would have yielded +10 points(handles) on five turns
The difference? ER offered +3pt to +5pt swings in straighter fashion from entry. ES was ragged, as it usually is in low-volume sessions.
As rehashed many times in other threads before, the bid/ask spread of any symbol is irrelevant to trading. Unless someone consistently sells the low tick and also buys the high tick of a swing, they did not capture the bid/ask spread.
In other words, if the YM moves from 12500 to 12550 and one trader caught 12510 entry 12530 exit while another was 12512 entry 12542 exit, neither of them caught the bid/ask spread. Price action <b>and the bid-ask spread</b> kept going after they exited.
YM is perfectly fine to trade, but it offers zero advantage of ES. When ES moves $100 per contract up or down, YM likewise moves +/- $100 per contract in same stretch.
I think it was the TTM guys working with the CBOT who started that whole 10 ticks YM scale to hide stops in versus 4 ticks ES. In reality, when ES moves 4 ticks the YM moves ten. Stops placed inside either range get taken out accordingly over the course of 100 or 1,000 consecutive trade events.
Es poses a greater intraday range than ym so in theory one should be able to capture more of the move trading it.
The bid ask issue is widely misunderstood by many.
The price you 'get' has nothing to do with the b/a spread.
The only way to 'capture' the spread is to buy on the bid and sell on the ask.
But since these things move so fast, it's practically irrelevant unless you are trading 500 times a day by computer.
Waste of time to worry about the spread for most traders these days. This is not what makes or breaks you.
The price you 'get' has nothing to do with the b/a spread.
The only way to 'capture' the spread is to buy on the bid and sell on the ask.
But since these things move so fast, it's practically irrelevant unless you are trading 500 times a day by computer.
Waste of time to worry about the spread for most traders these days. This is not what makes or breaks you.