Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 200,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- discounts are available after registering.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
I just think it's off topic. When floor pits were the norm the traders on the floor had an advantage over people who had to phone there orders in for obvious reasons.
Did that make them noise? They were playing different versions of the same game. Sure if they could take an advantage of situations but any advantage is quickly neutralized in the markets.
Sure now they have a huge database flow of novice traders but that doesn't change anything.
We will never move the market and they don't care about us.
And with all that information that doesn't guarantee they know the future any more than we do.
Also your comparing institutional traders to Robinhood traders?
I'm not too sure you are really understanding noise traders retail you and me 99% of anyone on this forum and informed traders. There is a massive difference and it may sound strange to hear this but if you break time down into pico and nano seconds then believe it when I say the phone latency was much less than right now.
Electronically the games played with iceberg orders and fast cancels are beyond anything ever done in the pits. The informed trader is citadel who has customers buy orders and customers sell orders in their inbox every morning.
This means citadel uses that information and size to fill both sides of the mkt. They know the imbalance of supply n demand before it hits the mkt. Before they make the trades. Then they see the imbalances from the actual mkt because when you fill 60 to 60% of the orders you know which ones u filled n which ones u didnt. So you can see by eliminating the ones u did to get an idea of supply demand long short mkt moves by other participants. No easy feat. But it's what they do.
The entire mkt is about not letting you fill when it's your advantage. This is what many fail to realize. The walls of orders that put u in the back of the que. They mkt moves by cancels. When hft algos cancel your level they let u fill on it. They have priority weeks and months ahead of time with iceberg orders to the millions. Mo joke even 5000 es level has iceberg liquidity.
None of this means you wont or cant make money just understand it's a stacked against you deck and we retail typically cancel each other out. Noise means you have zero real information about companies or what large participants are doing for real with pre orders..retail must make educated or random guesses from charts which are history not pre trade. There is no way to change this..
Electronic trading in the es mini had 2000 to 3000 lots sometimes on 1 tick!! That's how deep it was. You could do 1000 lots for 1 tick slippage!! Now that would be a full point! A 50k cost in and out vs 12,500 back then. Cme needs trades for fees that's why!!
Lol. No problems getting filled? Lol. Sure if you go market and pay up but try selling on the offer in the es futs and you will be waiting and waiting unless hft decides to cancel remaining orders n let u fill. No one would prefer 100 limits visible rather than 1000 visibke!!!
The market is an auction! That's how it functions! There ISN'T an institutional market maker eating everyones orders on either side of the bid/ask swallowing everyones positions!?!! It JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!!!
It's obvious from your last statement that you have never moved any size or even traded that much which is fine. Lots of people do well by not trading much.
"The great Traders have always been humbled by the market early on in their careers creating a deep respect for the market. Until one has this respect indelibly engraved in their makeup, the concept of money management and discipline will never be treated seriously."
Oh wow. I've heard of that but never seen it writen.
Thank you.
Seems to have the same flaws as Sharpe? For sure the emphasis seem to be on the drawdown vs the Std Dev but it suffers the same flaws.
And for a double whammy... risk is directly correlated with reward and so with so much focus on what is the real rate of safe money + safe money + premium / return???
That paper explains how extreme cases can be assimilated into the equation AND how the results can be dramatically different, even desirable vs standard measurements.
To be honest if I had to choose I would still choose SQN over PtoG.
The SQN preference is defensible. Its focus on expectancy per unit of risk rather than variance relative to some benchmark rate cuts through a lot of the Sharpe/Pain Ratio ambiguity you're identifying.
But the connection to noise here is genuinely interesting, and there are actually two different concepts colliding in this thread:
Kahneman's noise (his 2021 book with Sibony & Sunstein) describes undesirable variability in human judgment - the same problem assessed differently depending on mood, recency, cognitive state. Insurance underwriters pricing identical risk 55% apart. For traders: same setup, different decision, based on what the last trade did. That's Kahneman noise.
Al Brooks' "no noise" is about market price itself. His position is explicit: nothing the market does is random noise - every turn at every price has a reason, enough capital made it happen. He's rejecting the idea that any tick can be dismissed.
These aren't contradictory - they're addressing completely different layers. Brooks says the market signal is always real. Kahneman says your reading of that signal will be inconsistently noisy unless you impose structure on your judgment.
Which loops back to your metrics question: Sharpe and Pain Ratio try to quantify a system's signal-to-noise ratio statistically, but they don't touch the Kahneman problem at all. That's an execution discipline problem, not a measurement problem - and SQN doesn't solve it either. Different tools for different layers.
Your footprint and market profile work is probably the most practical defense against both - they force structured observation over discretionary impression.
-- Fi
"The market's message is consistent; the problem is the consistency of the listener."
Please leave feedback here. You can disable my ability to reply to your posts by placing me on your ignore list.
Fi provides educational information on a best-effort basis only. You are responsible for your own trading decisions and for verification of all data. This message is not trading advice.
