I cannot expand the image, and I do not have a 100" screen so I cannot see the little details. And you are showing the NQ. I am talking the ES.
You just proved my point. And by the way, the pic cannot be clicked yet. I think you have to add it as a link, and not embedding, for it to be clicked to expand.
Yes, if the point you were making was "it doesn't matter which market". And idk, it opens for me so maybe someone else can confirm it
Everyone can point out obvious moves after the fact. How many of those did you actually managed to trade with a tight stop?
I was going to say his calculation is wrong. His calculation says if you prepare for 10 losses in a roll, and each loss is $500, you will need a $5000 account. So he assumes a constant trading size. It does not make sense. Imagine you trade X contracts micros on a 5000 account, and when your account lose half value, and become 2500, you still trade X size. When your account lose 90% and become 500, you still trade X size. It is insane. Instead you need to trade a constant ratio of contracts to your account size. If you trade 10 micros on 5000 account, then you should trade 9 contracts on a 4500 account, and 5 on a 2500 account, 1 on a 500 account,and 20 on a 10000 account. That is correct money management.
I didn't even show moves. I just showed the market is not "wacky" at all. It's obeying the same principles it always does, day in, day out, year in, year out. And I am showing ES has moved mostly the exact same as NQ, so there should be no difference in approach from a technical standpoint. If you understand that, nothing has changed, and it's not about the market being crazy and randomly blowing your stops. People just need to take better entries in general. But like I said earlier, assuming the trader knows what he's doing, he should be able to trade without massive stops like 50 points. Remember this is futures trading, and it is high risk for people who don't know what they are doing.
So you are saying that the markets we are seeing today are in no way any more "wacky" than what we saw in the past? The average daily range is 3, 4 or even 5 times bigger than pre corona and a bigger daily range equals in bigger stops. Sure the patterns and whatever might be the same, the channels might be the same and what not, but if a channel now is 300 points while the exact same channel was 100 points in the past you will have to use a bigger stop otherwise you risk being stopped out before the move actually happens. If you put a stop below the previous low for example, on todays market the previous low would be 3, 4 or 5 times more points away than in the past, if you use the exact same pattern. How is that not "wacky"? So yeah, things definitely changed and if one uses the previous low as a stop (just en example) you have no other choice than increasing your stop with the range you are trading. So saying: "assuming the trader knows what he's doing, he should be able to trade without massive stops like 50 points". Is just BS since a trader doesn't control the markets and the volatility, one has to adapt to it. 50 points on NQ is nothing in current markets and can, does happen in just one minute.
Well you are right about that at least - the ranges and volatility are changed, and there are 200-300+ point moves. By wacky, I thought of "irrational" and "unpredictable" as if something fundamental about the market had changed, which is obviously not true. I'm not saying to use 5 point stops because a lot of those will be hit instantly. But I should mention I am day trading. If you are swing trading or taking hourly candle trades, we are talking about two totally different things, and your 50 point stops won't work there. And if we are getting 1000 point trends I might reconsider because my entries would probably require 30-40 point stops then. So we can just call it my opinion since I didn't ask what time frame - I just assume day trading when it comes to futures.