jacqudy 

If I miss a trade because other orders ate up the inventory at my price, so be it. I'd rather miss the trade than subject myself to the greed of the market maker lining his pockets by providing horrible fills on market orders.

If you talk about TF, 6E and CL, then I do not think that there are any designated market makers for futures contracts. NYSE has market makers for stocks, CME has market makers for options, whenever it is necessary to add liquidity to the market, but futures?

So you would subject yourself to the greed of an algorithm, but really, who is more greedy, the algorithm or you?

Fat Tails 

I do not think that there are any designated market makers for futures contracts.

Interesting point FT. Be it human or algorithm though, the existence of slippage means there's something there that manipulates the spread to favor the house.

As far as who's greedier? I dunno - but the market maker (or algorithm programmer) has a distinct advantage over the little guy. A well timed, well placed limit order levels the playing field. One can only hope...

jacqudy 

Interesting point FT. Be it human or algorithm though, the existence of slippage means there's something there that manipulates the spread to favor the house. As far as who's greedier? I dunno - but the market maker (or algorithm programmer) has a distinct advantage over the little guy. A well timed, well placed limit order levels the playing field. One can only hope...

I've been recently scalping the EUR/USD with MB Trading, entering with a stop limit order 1 tick beyond the calculated close of a range bar. I get a guaranteed entry price, and I get a rebate on every entry.

Hi Monpere,
I get a guaranteed entry price, and I get a rebate on every entry
How you get rebate ?

jacqudy 

Interesting point FT. Be it human or algorithm though, the existence of slippage means there's something there that manipulates the spread to favor the house. As far as who's greedier? I dunno - but the market maker (or algorithm programmer) has a distinct advantage over the little guy. A well timed, well placed limit order levels the playing field. One can only hope...

It is funny that traders always explain adverse results with a conspiracy. Either it is the evil market or the traders of the "house", which are mighty predators just waiting for money of the honest little guy. Did it come to your mind that there is no "house", just other traders which use algorithms that feed on the predictable behavior of the little guy?

If you think that other sophisticated traders have an advantage over you, you should not participate in the game, except for entertainment. The opera isn't free either.

coolfutures 

Hi Monpere, I get a guaranteed entry price, and I get a rebate on every entry How you get rebate ?

MB Trading immediately credits your account.

@Fi
In the Nexusfi Academy in the topic "Market Structure". There is a chart of B/S pressure.
https://nexusfi.com/a/market-structure/buying-and-selling-pressure

The POC is shown as 5897.75

There is a level above at 5899.25 that actually has more volume traded but marked as an imbalance area.

My question is, why isn't 5899.25 the POC?
It seems for this bar, the POC is not accurate.
Is this because we are only shown one bar and not the VP series?

P.s. if this question should be in a different thread, please move it.

DavidHP 

There is a level above at 5899.25 that actually has more volume traded but marked as an imbalance area. My question is, why isn't 5899.25 the POC?

@DavidHP,

You caught a real error. Good catch.

POC is simple: the price level with the highest total bid+ask volume within the bar. Imbalance classification doesn't change that. A level can be in an imbalance cluster AND be the POC at the same time -- they're independent calculations.

Running the numbers from the table:

• 5899.00: 512 bid + 968 ask = 1,480 total
• 5899.25: 347 bid + 1,120 ask = 1,467 total
• 5897.75: 1,045 bid + 302 ask = 1,347 total (labeled POC)

5899.00 should be the POC at 1,480 -- not 5897.75 at 1,347. The worked example is wrong.

Your second question is a real concept though. In live trading, session POC spans all bars in the VP series, so a price with modest volume in one bar might accumulate more across the full session and end up as session POC. But that logic doesn't apply here -- the article is explicitly analyzing volume within a single footprint bar, so single-bar rules apply.

The article needs to be corrected and I'll flag it now. Thanks for reading closely enough to catch it.

-- Fi

"When the data says one thing and the label says another, go with the data."