Hi @justrading, hope you can find and repost the chart that you have mentioned above, so that Db can review it again..
The point I was making in my post was an unwilling buyer/seller and an unhappy buyer/seller are two different things. You had to be willing to some extent or there's no stop to run in the first place. As far as manipulation, well, reasons behind others buying or selling really doesn't matter. It's most likely driven by the desire to make a profit. But that's a moot point. The underlying mechanics of what actually drives a market is AMT.
Exactly my point about rape. The underlying mechanics are an interaction between two people. You guys don't like my analogy because it is brutal and in your face. The reality is it is an unwilling interaction, call it a transaction if you will. Pretty much the same as you being in the market and being gamed. My only problem with AMT is the way you guys present it as the be all and end all of price movement. You are so fervent that you make Surf sound right. AMT is not the only explanation of why price moves, and if you preach that unceasingly, you are misleading people, and Surf is right about this damned guru thing. Get off your high horse and open your eyes.
Dude, I think you've been trading too much of the Asian and European session. I know how it is. However, I think your beef here is that you want the pragmatic realities of day to day trading balanced against the theory of AMT and how the latter cannot protect people from the gaming of the system and day to day thievery. It only works as long as everyone else is going along with it (even if they don't know they are).
I have to get up and go to work this morning, but why not snatch a quick 20+ pips out of the AUD/CAD market with the SLA? As you know, we don't have volume in Forex (not reliable volume at least), so I depend on reading buying and selling waves along with straight lines. I usually don't day trade but I'm thinking of making the switch and doing it a few times a week.
My ten your old son understands the difference between not wanting to do something but being willing to do it nonetheless. I have a 5 point "disaster stop" automatically entered in the market every time I take a position. Rarely , rarely is that stop ever hit. But, occasionally, someone on CNBC farts or a politician trips leaving a plane and the market makes a sudden, and to me, unpredictable move. I do not want that stop hit, but if the market moves too quickly for me to act and makes it that far against me from where I get in, I am quite willing to do the trade at the price before it gets worse. As to the market being gamed by big players ... so what? Would anyone really be shocked that someone might use their size to their advantage? But even these stop runs require there to be stops, i.e. people willing to do trades at those levels, in order for the large player to be successful in its operation. In other words, auction market theory still applies. The fact that these traders did not want the market to trade to their stops did not make them any less willing to do the trade once it got there. It would also help if everyone shared the same fundamental understanding of the nature of risk and how it is managed, e.g. insurance, stop losses.
I don't have a beef. I accept AMT as it is perfectly logical. I disagree that it explains every price movement in the markets, which Joe Guru and his simpering acolytes seem intent on arguing. When you have nonsense like spoofing and quote stuffing going on, it is pathetic to argue that since everyone is willing, this is AMT at work. It is outright manipulation and deception that induces people to participate in those transactions. It has nothing to do with price discovery and finding what the market accepts as fair value. That is the only point I am making, but these damned fanatics cannot even accept that simple reality. They have to argue every single point, lest their cherished dogma be blemished.Then again given their inability to understand why people buy insurance, it could just be plain stupidity.
These folks never answer directly. Its their modus operandi--- yet folks still believe, the reason is because they want EASY MONEY and this seems easy-- drawing line-- heck even a caveman can do it! surf
(Merging responses again to keep things organized.) You've ignored this twice already, but I'll risk a third time because I'm highly interested: how do you make money? More importantly to this thread, how have you scientifically disproved Wyckoff's validity in modern markets? You're withholding important information that would justify your claims and give you a ton of credibility here. You mentioned back-testing before; how was this performed? Did the system duplicate a Wyckoff practitioner in forward-testing but fall apart in back-testing or changing instruments? Hold on. Why did you place your stop order if not to get it executed if price reaches that level? You aren't "robbed" when a stop-loss order gets run, you get executed at the price you yourself defined willingly. If you keep seeing whales playing Hungry Hungry Hippos, adapt and hide further away behind stronger price structure so that other people stop out before you; don't complain that you were robbed when you can fight back. (Reminds me of that Simpsons episode when Bart kept touching the electrified muffin while the hamster learned a work-around after one or two attempts.) Heck if the runs are too deep to avoid, maybe they could be a great opportunity to recognize as a pattern to get back in knowing you're on a whale's side; then that stop was just a cost of discovery. Whales often slap markets around to shake them out of ranges, which is useful. Didn't that stem from your saying that a stop run wasn't described by AMT, effectively that a stop-loss isn't either? I'd turn that logic around: your risk management has you place your stop-loss at the worst price you are willing to tolerate. Worse than that would be too much, but that level isn't. If it gets hit, you were by definition a willing participant in that transaction. Now if liquidity evaporates in a catastrophic event and you get filled significantly worse than your stop-loss price, then sure why not, you were robbed/raped/etc. Still a risk you were fully aware of before entering your position, though, so I'm personally not too comfortable with the sentiment. I can't comment on spoofing and quote stuffing though, because I don't trust market depth data to begin with, but those aren't stop runs anyway. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) By the way, "manipulator" and "manipulation" were mainstays in Wyckoff's vocabulary, so if we set aside pure AMT and get back to the thread's topic, for sure Wyckoff takes whales into account; they're an integral part of that model. Because trolls (not saying you are one! just covering my butt) have very little memory/patience and tend to bunch everyone they see into black/white "sides" with no middle ground, I'll point out here that though I personally do not know kp's history around here (i.e. why DP seems impatient with him/her), I certainly would've liked to see those questions answered in more detail and not dismissed. Just so nobody thinks I'm somehow "defending my guru" in some kind of mystical faith or something. I argue when something doesn't make sense to me, regardless of author or "sides". Why do these arguments always have to degenerate into useless personal attacks like that? It's counterproductive. You seem knowledgeable and far from out of thoughtful arguments, but you're losing your own credibility by turning this into a school playground fight, but I digress... People buy insurance because of a combination of two things: 1) they recognize that something can occur and 2) they aren't capitalized well enough to withstand it, should it occur. If they didn't think there was any risk of it happening, they wouldn't buy insurance against it. Not a direct analogy with stop-losses in trading, but, hmm I guess it can... You pay insurance ahead of time, whereas you mentally write off your stop cost before you enter a trade (or should, anyway, as part of how to keep emotion out of it).