The silver run came to an end and I had to settle for 5.6% account gain.
So, there's this troll guy yeah and he keeps on posting a lotta shit all the time all over the place
- Thread starter JTrades
- Start date
- Status
Bless the Internet. There have been a few people - and I mean few - over the years on websites (mostly trading sites) who have given glimpses into what is possible. I appreciate your motives.
Something interesting I've seen is OandA's "best trade of the day". Despite their obvious marking interest in disseminating this data. Many of the trades I've seen there are legitimate according to how I understand the market. A clue is that certain strategies will trade very close to market tuns, and another is the prepositioning before a substantial move, with liquidation into temporarily unsustainable prices. Gamblers won't believe this is consistently possible as they have only their own losing experiences and will protect their ego by claiming its not possible. Yet its a public hint about what is possible in trading which is accessible to (open minded) beginners: http://fxtrade.oanda.com/analysis/best-forex-trade-of-the-day
Hi Joe,
It seems you've been successful in demonstrating what is possible.
1) Are you inclined to elaborate in any way on how you identify tarmac, as it is being prepared?
2) You've taken winning positions in the likes of GBP/CAD, but I sense you aren't preoccupied with fundamentals which, to my mind, could scupper any one of your trades (e.g. Central Banker speeches)?
3) You've posted charts with moving averages and other lines, but I sense these are nothing more than a visual convenience for you, rather than the source of entry-signal. Could you comment on the information you do use, e.g. price, time & volume data - perhaps it is tabulated?
4) Over the years I've read (and instinctively believe) that the markets tend to periodically experience "regime change", such that winning strategies - like the 'Turtles breakout strategy' - have a limited shelf life. Would you describe your read on the markets as being a timeless positive edge? If that is the case, will you not be pulling in 9 figures per annum soon enough?
Thanks for any insight
It seems you've been successful in demonstrating what is possible.
1) Are you inclined to elaborate in any way on how you identify tarmac, as it is being prepared?
2) You've taken winning positions in the likes of GBP/CAD, but I sense you aren't preoccupied with fundamentals which, to my mind, could scupper any one of your trades (e.g. Central Banker speeches)?
3) You've posted charts with moving averages and other lines, but I sense these are nothing more than a visual convenience for you, rather than the source of entry-signal. Could you comment on the information you do use, e.g. price, time & volume data - perhaps it is tabulated?
4) Over the years I've read (and instinctively believe) that the markets tend to periodically experience "regime change", such that winning strategies - like the 'Turtles breakout strategy' - have a limited shelf life. Would you describe your read on the markets as being a timeless positive edge? If that is the case, will you not be pulling in 9 figures per annum soon enough?
Thanks for any insight
1) No. Holy grails are not available on the internet. Generally, I can accomplish things that I can see is possible. If I don't see something is possible, then I would be extremely hesitant in putting in the effort. So my showing what is possible is for someone like me.
2) The oil price is crapping out and hasn't finished crapping out. So an oil economy such as CAD is crapping out. They also reduced their interest rate. More reason for CAD to crap out. This stuff is all fundamental. As the central banker would have taken a position before they told everyone else it is crapping out, they are unlikely to sink their own trade. So I predict all future statements by them will be in the direction of their trade.
3) Everyone uses moving averages since the beginning of time. A chart would be incomplete without them. I use nothing special. It's more to do with interpreting the common data.
4) If a whole bunch of people get together and do the same thing, these people become predictable and therefore can be exploited for profit by those who have the means. The moment the exploitation comes in, the system ceases to work. Success and failure of a system has a lot to do with whether it presents a juicy target worth someone's effort to exploit. As I am a small target currently, I expect my approach to continue to work. But I imagine if I reach a certain size, it will then become worthwhile for someone or some bank to do a quick 500 point spike to grab my money.
If I have 9 figures in play, the banks will easily trump me with their 11 figures. Whoever has more money and more staying power wins. I think Jesses Livermore failed because he did not appreciate that there were people bigger than him. He made a nice big juice target to take down.
Thanks for the lengthy response.
I've read Jessie Ls reminiscences several times over the years - it's a fine book, although I always found the chapter about the fur coat pretty bizarre!
Have just been demolishing all of your posts. Really I ought to have done so before posting my questions above. Among the various points I made a mental note of:
I see you don't have any special respect for time or price:
- "No, don't stop there. Tell me more about your time based holy grail."
- "The market is driven by positions and not by price."
Although you did list these three as being the more important info:
"1. Price
2. SMA
3. Volume"
---------------------
You seem to make an important distinction between bankers and market makers, as you label them. As near as I can tell you attribute the longer-time frame moves to the bankers, and the smaller time frame gaming of price to the MMs:
- "While the bankers are away, the market makers play!"
- "the market makers should come play with you at 4:30 GMT, after the bank/institution people pack up and go home for the day."
- "I saw no bankers in action and only the market makers monkeying around with the price levers."
There is some slight inconsistency in one post, though:
"The bank operates quite simply: move price to cost, move price to stop, move price to 'resistant level' that the mental stop might be kept. Repeat for the next guy"
- I took it that MMs specifically are the stop-hunters. Do you not therefore mean "market maker", and not "banker", in this example?
---------------------
The underlying premise of your strategy is to identify where the market can do the most business, i.e. where the most stops are to be found:
"The market is like any other business, it will go to the place where there is most business."
I suppose what I have difficulty reconciling in my own mind is that the S&P500 has rallied for several years, and therefore I feel that there ought to be more stops (more business) to be done on the downside, rather than the odd retailer who "throws himself in front of the train/pacman" by attempting to short.
However, you did also say:
"where there are trades present with no stops then locations of potential stops are visited"... which implies the players who are long SP500 are "bankers" who have open positions - but have no stops themselves on the downside and therefore offer no motivation for the market makers to probe lower...
---------------------
"The only time the market will adopt a random posture is when there are no open positions present."
- Do you look at Open Position Data to determine when the market is in a random posture? CME publishes some data but perhaps not covering your particular markets; perhaps not timely enough either.
---------------------
"Given that most people buy high sell low (as a goal and as a reality), they just need to do the reverse of their strategy, whatever it may be. Is that detailed enough ?"
- An interesting observation. Their goal is quite literally to buy high & sell low by virtue of the fact they set stops X ticks below their entry. What might be more effective is to make their entry where initially their stop would have been.
---------------------
"I know enough to say there are heavy bets on the 1.20 breaking. Anyone who go contrary to that is going to lose their shirt. Nov 30, 2014"
- That thread was a very amusing read from start to finish. You were painted to be another ET ignorant nut-job - it was a great finale.
---------------------
"Don't you also need to know the professionals already know what it's the release a couple of days prior and prepositioned ?"
I happen to know something about data releases. It would be very difficult, and extremely risky, to sell inside info to bankers, without raising red flags - serious jail time. I'm just not so sure as you are that the markets are this corrupt --- the NFP numbers etc I believe are as much of a surprise to you as to any banker out there.
I've read Jessie Ls reminiscences several times over the years - it's a fine book, although I always found the chapter about the fur coat pretty bizarre!
Have just been demolishing all of your posts. Really I ought to have done so before posting my questions above. Among the various points I made a mental note of:
I see you don't have any special respect for time or price:
- "No, don't stop there. Tell me more about your time based holy grail."
- "The market is driven by positions and not by price."
Although you did list these three as being the more important info:
"1. Price
2. SMA
3. Volume"
---------------------
You seem to make an important distinction between bankers and market makers, as you label them. As near as I can tell you attribute the longer-time frame moves to the bankers, and the smaller time frame gaming of price to the MMs:
- "While the bankers are away, the market makers play!"
- "the market makers should come play with you at 4:30 GMT, after the bank/institution people pack up and go home for the day."
- "I saw no bankers in action and only the market makers monkeying around with the price levers."
There is some slight inconsistency in one post, though:
"The bank operates quite simply: move price to cost, move price to stop, move price to 'resistant level' that the mental stop might be kept. Repeat for the next guy"
- I took it that MMs specifically are the stop-hunters. Do you not therefore mean "market maker", and not "banker", in this example?
---------------------
The underlying premise of your strategy is to identify where the market can do the most business, i.e. where the most stops are to be found:
"The market is like any other business, it will go to the place where there is most business."
I suppose what I have difficulty reconciling in my own mind is that the S&P500 has rallied for several years, and therefore I feel that there ought to be more stops (more business) to be done on the downside, rather than the odd retailer who "throws himself in front of the train/pacman" by attempting to short.
However, you did also say:
"where there are trades present with no stops then locations of potential stops are visited"... which implies the players who are long SP500 are "bankers" who have open positions - but have no stops themselves on the downside and therefore offer no motivation for the market makers to probe lower...
---------------------
"The only time the market will adopt a random posture is when there are no open positions present."
- Do you look at Open Position Data to determine when the market is in a random posture? CME publishes some data but perhaps not covering your particular markets; perhaps not timely enough either.
---------------------
"Given that most people buy high sell low (as a goal and as a reality), they just need to do the reverse of their strategy, whatever it may be. Is that detailed enough ?"
- An interesting observation. Their goal is quite literally to buy high & sell low by virtue of the fact they set stops X ticks below their entry. What might be more effective is to make their entry where initially their stop would have been.
---------------------
"I know enough to say there are heavy bets on the 1.20 breaking. Anyone who go contrary to that is going to lose their shirt. Nov 30, 2014"
- That thread was a very amusing read from start to finish. You were painted to be another ET ignorant nut-job - it was a great finale.
---------------------
"Don't you also need to know the professionals already know what it's the release a couple of days prior and prepositioned ?"
I happen to know something about data releases. It would be very difficult, and extremely risky, to sell inside info to bankers, without raising red flags - serious jail time. I'm just not so sure as you are that the markets are this corrupt --- the NFP numbers etc I believe are as much of a surprise to you as to any banker out there.
Fair enough, until the rambly nutter bit above.
Come on answer the next questions LOL
They don't need insider data, they can simply given enough money and man power estimate what the data will be before it's release and they have enough money and man power to do this.
And ofcourse MA's only give the direction of where the market was going, you just have to hope that it keeps going that way long enough to make a profit.
And ofcourse MA's only give the direction of where the market was going, you just have to hope that it keeps going that way long enough to make a profit.
I think that's a valid point. Defo not beyond the resources of a big bank to estimate accurately the next inflation reading etc.
currently watching linda bradford raschke on youtube. Fairly interesting but god-damn her voice really grates after 60 minutes lol...
will give Will Busby a go now.
currently watching linda bradford raschke on youtube. Fairly interesting but god-damn her voice really grates after 60 minutes lol...
will give Will Busby a go now.
Last edited:
interestingly, most laugh at that, it just seems like too much hard work, don't think they realise how much money is involved.
They will get it wrong at times, they don't need the number, just above or below the previous or the estimated value.
Reminiscences was just a made up story book. The fur coat bit was probably made up or transplanted from elsewhere but nevertheless plausible and believable because people in that kind of environment do that kind of things. I once worked at a small stockbroker that had some washed out bank traders in it. They were literally going f**k this, c**t that all day long in an office that had a typical female complement. They also sh*t on the walls, quite high up, that specialists had to be called in to sort out. So a fur coat is quite mild.
Livermore had a failed book prior to Reminiscences. In that book he described his technique in great detail. So if you are looking for a holy grail, maybe there's something in there. I never got pass a few page of that myself.
Not sure why you are demolishing my posts. I never care about other people's views. I know what I know and no one can convince me otherwise.
Interests of market makers and banks are aligned. Sometimes they are even one and the same thing. They are only separate for some administrative legal reasons. Making too much of their differences would be a mistake. They both are on the other side of your trade, as well as the trades of the hedge funds. Market makers go after stops for their daily earnings. Banks can also go after stops because they want the liquidity. The purposes might be different, but the effect is the same.
So why do you know about news releases ? You work in the news release "industry" ? I don't know about selling insider info, I always think of it as trading on their own info through proxy.
I once had a trade in Turkish Lira and was keeping an eye on what was going on. The price was able to predict the death of this little boy and the follow on rioting 3-4 days in advance. I would say these scumbags not only paid the doctors when to turn off the machine, they also funded the rioting. Of course none of the little people doing the dirty work knew what the big picture was, which was to make some profits in the market. A lot of news are done with predefined goals in mind.
Last edited:
- Status