At what point did I mention fundamentals? You misunderstood what I meant when I said supply and demand. I was refering to supply and demand of the instrument; Not the underlying. The vast majority of CL contracts never result in delivery. They are used for hedging, speculation etc.
This is funny. Supply and demand of the trading instruments, not the actual energy supply and demand? This is just a joke. When traders talk about energy supply/demand, they always talk about the underlying physical commodity. Sigh.....
Indeed, and also quite sad that by your own admissions earlier in this thread you have little idea about the dynamics of the market you trade, but yet are so quick to lecture those that do. Yep. Supply and demand for a derivative != supply and demand for its underlying. That's why derivative products exist. Because they cater to customers with different trading requirements. Otherwise everyone would trade the cash product. If you can't get your head around that there's very little point in continuing this discussion. I agree. But I suspect the joke is on you. Where did I say I was talking about 'energy' supply and demand? You assumed that. If you are trading intraday then fundamentals are of little importance. The activity in the instrument itself is of much greater importance. My thoughts exactly. I very rarely visit ET these days and you have reminded me why. A forum overrun with pikers. The blind leading the blind. And those who know least so keen to say most. I guess that's why so many of the pros have disappeared. And now I shall too. Good luck with your guessing. Hope those correlations work out for you.
I found myself with the same thoughts just now. The contempt before investigation, the failure to take responsibility for one's own actions, the name-calling, the egomaniacal bluster, all running rampant here. Everyone wants a magic formula and no one wants to do any work. If a book or a post or concept is difficult and doesn't provide an exact formula, then it's all crap. If you provide someone with an exact formula and the formula may produce losing trades (gasp!), then it's no better than a coin toss. Tell you what, in the spirit of the season I'll sacrifice myself to appease the masses: TA does NOT work. It's all hindsight stuff drawn on cherry-picked charts. There's no way to make money in real time trading off charts. That's a fallacy promoted by trading education guys who just want to sell you their books, webinars, trading rooms, courses, and systems. Neither I, nor any small traders, can win; the game is rigged and you'll lose, you just will! The only way to win is to have massive capital and inside information. To succeed you need at least $500,000 that you can afford to lose, and then only trade the size allows you to avoid using a stop loss, ever, because stops cause losses. The stop hunters will find your stop loss no matter where you place it and as soon as they stop you out, they will single-handedly run price exactly where you knew it was going to end up. All my posts for the past five years have been a carefully crafted infomercial for my services. Despite the fact that I'm a failed trader posting bullsh*t on an anonymous forum, I'm a really great trading educator! For only $10,000, I will mentor the first 20 people who sign up at my web site: www.fivefiguresadayonjustfivekay.com Cheers!
Up about a 100 ticks since your "top". In your favor though daily vol has declined three days in a row and we're just below a former significant swing high. Someone in a chat room recently cited a study that claimed 75% of price moves could not be explained by fundamentals. ( I think it specifically applied to CL) I do not have nor have I seen the study myself.
There's the tired. Couple handle range to the downside today in May contract. All it took was a lil downtime with the Pegasus pipeline for things to get more crowded at Cushing & market responded. Yes, tired.
Thanks for finally saying the truth. Don't you feel better now. Come on Marketsurfer our work here is finally done, let's move on.