Well, yeah you are probably right. How many here have a 7 figure trading account that they can sling around? I would say a minority.
If you take the idea of "bigger money at smaller gains" to an extreme then it indicates that infinite money thrown at no edge at all would be profitable... interesting..
Haha. You hit the nail on the head. Most traders that know how to trade aren't looking at some message board trying to find tips and hints. ET is purely entertainment for me, as most of the opinions are useless or only effective as contrarian indicators. There are occasional good nuggets by certain traders that I find useful, the proverbial needle in a haystack.
For swing trader, current lower volatility is better since overnight risk exposure is lower and commission/spread/slippage do not effect your edge much. However, for intra-day trading without a meaningful range, the game is much tougher. Commission/spread/slippage cost increases significantly relative to your edge/profit, and HFT, sub-penny trading further compound the problem. Increasing size will make it worst since the fill/slippage will be even worst. Remember, intra-day trading is a low margin business. Lescor has a great week last week and he made 0.05 per share, and he said on average, he will be happy to make 0.01 to 0.005 per share. If he doubles his postion on every trade, his 0.01 might disappear all together.
Ha. I think HFs have pulled back massively because the government is creating so many distortions with QE and other schemes. The system is even more fragile than last year
There are several nuggets of truth in this post. Instead of the usual nay sayers dismissing it, take another slow outloud read and see what you can find. Example, if vol is declining you might want to consider more aggressive trading? Look at the recent extended decline in vol. You could take that as a signal, along with the rising market to be more aggressive on the long side and more cautious on the short side. If you are doing ICs you can be closer with your puts and either leave your calls off or go further out. I think one of the important points is what is the change of vol relative to price.
....less clearing fees. :eek: i dont go with this theory either. especially the way daal pretty much gives a passing mention to the black swan, seemingly not realising that it is the lower volatility environments when such creatures tend to crop up. i mean would a wild increase in vol have been considered a black swan in late 2008? no sir. daal - with all respect, i think you are paying too much attention to game/math theory, and not enough to the trenches.
As I said, the dudes 'loving' VIX at 80 could have pretty much been wiped out if they got into the wrong side of the gap back then, lots did, you dont hear from those, only the successful ones from the sample
Instead of increasing the leverage or position size to compensate for lack of volatility... Switch trading instruments to something that has more volatility. Yeah, that won't work for those that have an edge that's specific to a particular trading instrument but it will work for others that have an edge that's transferable to a different trading instrument. Bingo. Regardless, as volatility changes (up or down)...new edges can be found until the next big volatility change...then rinse...wash...repeat. Mark
I think there is something wrong with the comments the OP is making when you look at what happened to gold recently. Don't get me started on what silver is doing and this is just me looking at daily price quotes! I don't even have access to the real-time stuff yet!