Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 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 -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
This is from a BookMap chart from last Friday's trading. Look at the Buying Volume that crossed the spread and Price did not respond. 20 seconds later price rises on much less buying.
The traditional explanation is that Seller's "absorbed" the Buying pressure. This explanation is, at best, a guess. It allows one to continue to believe that 'somehow' Buyer's and Seller's control Price.
I was talking with one of my trading mentors a few months ago. I haven't talked with her for a few years. Her name is Pam Ludwig. She was the moderator for the Futures room at Trade Angle Strategies (TAS). When she left TAS she opened her own room called Traders News Network (TNN). She closed her room a few years later. Pam was the best trader I have ever seen. Finding someone who is truly successful trading is rare.
I contacted her to ask her a question. During the course of our conversation she showed me her trading strategy. She didn't go in to her Rules, Risk/Reward, Target/Stops nor Trade Management. It was just a very brief display of her trading strategy. I was appalled at it's simplicity and the simplicity of the logic behind it. During my conversation with her, she commented on how I was making trading more difficult than it needed to be.
This is her strategy and the Logic behind it.
She goes Long when the Market trades above A and C and goes Short when it trades below 1. The logic is: the Sellers from A to B and C to D are no longer present or interested and the Buyers from 1 to 2 are no longer present or interested.
That's it! A very simple strategy using very simple logic.
Keep it Simple!
Hi skifaster. Welcome to the best trading forum on the internet.
I have used her levels in the past. I currently do not. If you are interested in looking at them further, I strongly recommend you contact her for the trial and see if they fit with your trading needs. She sends out info with them but she is always willing to answer questions and go into more detail if necessary. Pam is the best!
Over the past several months, I have, both here in my Journal and on other threads, posted some pretty negative comments and reviews about OneUp Trader. I believe those comments were warranted and justified. In the end, however, I decided to go with OneUp over TopStep. Time will tell if that was a good decision or not.
I reached the review section of the evaluation process today and am now waiting to be funded. I began with the $100k account but had to downgrade to the $50k. Perhaps I will go back to the $100k. But also, perhaps I will go with TopStep next time. Again, time will tell.
I went with OneUp for several reasons:
First, I like the idea of NOT having to pay for data feeds. TopStep you pay for your own data.
Second, when I began, I needed two connections, one to NT and one to BookMap. I was told, somewhere, that I could only have one connection with TopStep. I have since found out that the information about only one connection was inaccurate.
Third, OneUp was a little cheaper per month.
Fourth, the initial 100% payout of $8k over $5k was more appealing.
Fifth, the draw downs were a little higher in OneUp. It added a little more wiggle room in case of some consecutively bad trades.
Those were my reasons for going with OneUp. I am still not happy about how they do their funding with the threshold component nor the scaling component but, for now, I'll bite the bullet and live with it. That's the program. That's how they have chosen to do it. I had and have other options. For now, I will live with it.
And for the record, I think it is awesome that Big Mike has recognized the incredible contributions of @bobwest. A few weeks ago when Bob wrote an explanation to a question I had, I noticed how much he has contributed to this forum. And yet he didn't have a "Legendary" or "Wizard" designation. Thank you Bob for all of your contributions. "Super Moderator" indeed! I am glad you got the recognition that you deserve.
I don't know if I'm all that much a "super" moderator, more like just a "moderator in training," actually. But I'm learning.
Before I got moderatorized, I was a "legendary" "wizard," which simply reflects how much you type (), and how many Thanks you get, and a few other measures of participation. There's a formula that assigns these labels. For an explanation you can look at the top of the main page and click: UserCP > Your Profile > Statistics and then the topic "Forum Reputation." Basically, it reflects high participation and the judgment of the membership on that participation. I do appreciate the recognition it involves, and I appreciate the other people who received it, and the members who granted it.
Moderators (and admins) are the guys who watch for things that violate rules, and try to keep the forum organized by having threads put in the right places, and otherwise try to keep things running smoothly. You can tell them by the purple background to their names.
The moderation team has five members:
@Big Mike - Admin
@sam028 - Admin
@tturner86 - Super Moderator. Terry also does all the webinars, and has for years.
@xplorer - Super Moderator
@bobwest - Super Moderator (New Guy)
I have known each of the others for many years, and have been (and am) in awe of their work and dedication.
It's been a while since I added to my journal. My passion for trading has not diminished. As a matter of fact, if anything, it's increased.
I think I posted previously that I no longer trade the 6E- contrary to the Title. Too much info to start another Journal. I was originally trading the 6E in correlation to the USD at Support and Resistance. I didn't trade the USD just the 6E.
Apparently there's something about Correlation Markets that I find appealing because now I trade the ES and NQ.
I still trade Support and Resistance however.
I was trading proprietary levels. "Was" is the operative word. Now, I trade what's free. No need to buy anything. Don't need to. Free suites me just fine.
Fibs, dValue, Previous Fibs and previous dValue.
Sorry, I'm not going to post a screenshot. I've said enough. Besides, this Journal isn't about methodology. It's about trading.
I'm kind of ashamed to say I started keeping a Journal elsewhere- Notepad. I'll transcribe everything here eventually. Most of it's non-descriptive.
Perhaps I should include here what started all this. I had an idea that struck me as rather profound at the time. It was so profound.
I wrote, "Your ability to identify what the Market could be doing is only as good as the comprehensiveness of your list of possibilities."
I think the Market is a combination of art and science.
I suck at art. Still draw stick figures. I have zero creativity. and yet, the ebb and flow of the Market is pure poetry. It breathes and sways. And I'm usually late to see it or recognize it.
My science inclination wants it to fit in a box. Logic. Reason. Apply a formula and let it spit out the correct answer. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. It's like I'm left trying to swat a fly with a hammer.
So that was what precipitated my profound epiphany. Since I lack the creativity necessary, my science mentality says keep a list in front of me of the embodiment of the artsy. Is it possible to reduce Art to a few considerations?
Of late I've started to see ABC pullbacks. Never paid attention to them. They look like reversals.
See, my science mentality would be duped thinking the Market is doing something it's not. I need an artsy ABC "reminder" since I don't have a natural inclination to think it.
More later.