If you are swing trading using 30-minute and higher charts you typically enter using a buy limit-stop (long). Ditto for your exit limit-stop. I use IB and with YM it zips through the buy stop with my limit order activated several ticks under. More often than not, if there is any trend it will not back-fill and touch my limit order. This makes YM impossible for me to trade unless I want to use a market order (which I don't want to use due to the slippage - I'll just trade ES with its thicker liquidity). For a very short term scalper, perhaps like Nitro, this may not be an issue. But for swing traders YM is a living hell. Like I said, I really hope they get native stops so I can trade it again.
YM is harder than both of those put together if you trade in a Market Making style. But if the reason is technology, then that is the easiest part to fix. nitro
Hmmm - this doesn't make sense to me - I find that YM is easier to swing trade than ES or NQ because it usually trends better than the others - I mostly scalp ES or NQ for a few points but I shoot for 20 to 80 on YM when swing trading. Also, when swing trading, getting the near perfect fill isn't as important as when scalping - doesn't it stand to reason that an instrument that is harder to get filled on would not be as good for scalping? Certainly the lower liquidity levels on YM would not be as conducive to scalps, IMO. Regards, Paul
I agree with your post. Trying to play market maker on YM is tantamount to disaster because there is rarely size on the bid/offer, and the spread is wide. Swing trading, whatever that means, is the way retail traders trade YM. On a side note, if you traded YM the way people traded stocks when they were moved in 1/4 or 1/8' s, that may prove to be interesting... nitro
Sounds like a case of not taking responsiblity for your outcome. The most profitable trader I know personally, trading in fair, trades the YM. Typical hold time is 1 to 3 days. System uses very tight stops.
What a ridiculous comment. Of course I am taking responsibility for my outcome. I cannot trade YM the way I want to with limit entries and exits because they aren't effective without native stops on the CBOT. I am not willing to accept the slippage with market orders. The only reason to trade the less liquid YM over ES is when YM is out performing. But, if you have to absorb a lot of slippage, then that advantage is diminished. As a result I am limiting myself to ES and NQ until the CBOT gets native stop-limits.
Tea, My comment was not intended to ridicule or insult. Of course, it is your perogative to ignore it or attack it. If you were to take a look into the deeper meaning of what I said, you might find it enlightening. Things are not always as they seem on the surface, and as a practice, I refuse to make statements that have no benefit to those I aim it at. If you said what you did simply because you were bored and wanted to chat, that's one thing. If you said it because, even if only in a small way, you felt that your performance was hindered by the situation you describe; then you are not taking full responsibility. This is not about being wrong, or bad. Not taking full responsiblity means not accepting yourself as the only cause of your outcomes. When you decide to believe that you and only you are the cause of every outcome, then you are in control. When blame for any aspect of a negative outcome (for that matter positive outcome) lies outside yourself, you give up control and direction. This is just the way the mind works. It has nothing to do with facts. It has to do with belief.
BM: I am surprised that someone as astute as yourself missed the unwritten sub-meaning or un-said underlying meaning in my previous comments. My un-said underlying meaning or USUM is that in trading one must discern and select the instruments to trade that are the most efficient within the parameters of your trading system. "To decide, to be at the level of choice, is to take responsibility for your life and to be in control of your life"