Might want to put ob/os on a back burner and look at price congestion instead. Depending on your POV, price congestion may be nothing more SR price levels. I take another view... price congestion is price equilibrium. So studying price congestion can provide alot of intraday ob/os details. And it's visually discernable as well as being quantifiable. Have a nice day, Osorico
Everything is derived from price, volume and time. But indicators are used because it is easier to be interpreted by the humain brain. So i don't agree at all that you only have to watch price and volume only. The humain brain has certain preferences to analyse information that it receives. I will give you an example: red, blue, magenta, blue, white ,grey, blue, blue, bleu, red, red, red,yellow, brown, white, white, white, white, white, yellow, red, blue, magenta, blue, white ,magenta, blue, grey, blue, blue, bleu, red, red, red, blue, magenta, blue, white ,magenta, blue, grey, blue, blue, bleu, red, red, red, blue, magenta, blue, white ,grey, blue, blue, bleu, red, red, red, magenta, blue, blue, magenta, blue, white ,grey, blue, blue, bleu, red, red.... this serie has a lenght of 1310720 colours, so it's too long to post here. Now the question is: what does this serie say to you? If i visualize it it looks like the attachment. It's up to you to decide what is best: serie of colors or a "picture". The 1310720 colours are the pixels from a screen with a resolution of 1280 by 1024.
Well that's the secret from the successful trader. Some traders can do things that others can't. But isn't that so for everything in life?
The size of the position is irrelevant for the performance of the system. A loss is a loss, and the size doesn't change because you trade small. If you lose 1 point, ir will always stay 1 point, size of the trade cannot change the 1 point loss in something less. It only make sense as part of the money management.
Keep at it. I've heard that it was how PTJ sized his positions. I haven't had time to follow your Grains Journal but I think I can add some value to it in the future. I interned for a successful CTA.
I do look at 20,50 and 200 day ema on long term charts to scan for support and resistance. I also look for retracements. Math question 1297.33 - 1268.42 = 28.91 28.91 x .5 = 14.445 1268.42 + 14.445 = 1282.875 Why am I posting this ? What was the high for yesterday on the s&p ? 1282.74 http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^GSPC&t=5d&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
The size of the position (position size management) is very important to most profitable traders...usually to the experience profitable traders. In fact, a win:loss ratio can be for example like 42% and you can still be a very profitable trader simply because you know win to go small and when to go large along with having trade management skills to have bigger profits in your winners in comparison to the losing trades. Simply, your criteria for measuring the performance of your system may be different than the criteria that someone else uses to measure the performance of their system. Therefore, until we know the specific details of Buy1Sell2 trading plan (currently we don't)... Our opinions may be based upon assumptions about his trade methodology. Something to think about. Thus, position size management is absolutely critical to the performance of some traders system along with other variables (ex. commissions, downtime et cetera). A 1 point loss on 2 contract position is a lot different than a 1 point loss on a 10 contract position If I misunderstood...please correct me. Mark (a.k.a. NihabaAshi) Japanese Candlestick term
In the positional account, I covered my short ESH6 at 1277.75 for 11.25 pt profit and rolled the short to ESM6 at 1287.75. Positional profit 11.25 points = $562.50 Total commission = $6.27 Net positional profit = $556.23 Now short one unit for longer term at 1287.75 (ESM6)
Money management has only a âleverageâ effect to a strategy. Some comments here sound like a good money management can turn a losing strategy into a winning strategy. This is absolutely not true! But this is often a result of a wrong understanding of money management. I give you an example: A trader has a system which contains 2 different strategies. Strategy A has a losing expectancy of -3 pts and strategy B has a winning expectancy of 2 pts. 1.) So if you trade both strategies with 1 contract each and strategy B has as many trades as strategy A then the system will lose 1pt (-3+2) overall. 2.) Now change the condition: Trade strategy A with 1 contract and strategy B with 2 contracts and the system will suddenly win 1 pt (-3 + 2x2) overall. Some people blame this positive result to a good money management which is wrong. To improve the system you simply have to eliminate the losing strategy A because compensating losses with wins from strategy B has nothing to do with money management. To B1S2: Could you please explain what's your criteria to trade a bigger position? Is it dependent from your previous trade or what else?