for #2: How does your broker have trouble trading against you? If you want to buy 100 units your broker has to sell you those units. In a bucket-shop your broker is trading against you by default. If your broker is passing your orders into the real ...

This is truly groundbreaking. Re-read the thread a few times and you may eventually grasp the concepts we're discussing. If i remember correctly you were in the process of turning 1k into 1 billion (in four years) so I'm not really sure ...

Let me try to explain with an example Usually for a daily chart to move X% requires 4 hours (or whatever) of shared sentiment (or otherwise a very large amount of money). For a tick chart to move that same percentage may require only one rouge ...

Slack, sadly, this has turned into an argument of who is more clueless. I say the short time-frame is noisy for reasons i already spelled out: thousands of participants all doing their own thing, many of which have the ability to move the market. ...

Crucial, let me preface this by saying we all have our own reasons for posting. My reason is so that people like you can come around and tell me why I'm an idiot. And if you can prove it then I actually got something worthwhile from all this. So ...

While "lol i am profitable" is a strong point, I'm sure someone as smart as yourself can appreciate empirical evidence. As i described in my original post, the study was posted by that user, not done by him. But regardless of who did the study it ...

I think the reason you're causing so much excitement is because you aren't measuring your risk like most do here. It seems you're basing your risk on the margin that your broker holds, which is why it changes when your maximum leverage changes. A ...

Take a better look at what actually happens when the US prints currency.

Marv, with all due respect, I would define the edge you speak of as the "Holy Grail" if you are winning consistently in the long-run over changing market environments with 0% chance or randomness. I do not hope to achieve this nor do i think it's ...

A long time frame compared to a short time frame presents different opportunities. Search for posts by Danielfppps. He posted a study (which is more evidence then you'll get from any other posters here) that concluded the FX market was weak-form ...

Technically a limit order says to your broker "I would like to transact at this price or better". In your example, since 1.1250 is a better bid than 1.1225, your broker will fill your order immediately but @ no worse price than 1.1225. The type of ...

No they aren't. You could have a statistically significant edge in the short-term that disappears when market conditions change. By definition an edge can work for however long it works. A single edge does certainly not need to beat the market ...

The point is whether you will still be profitable over a changing market environment. Not weather your edge is statistically significant. I'd say in this sense, all time frames can be judged the same.

I think a better question would be "For how long have you been consistently profitable?" And to answer the question: I am not consistently profitable.

OK, tell me what "Zero Sum" means to YOU. edit: Traderunner, i already addressed that quote made by the President of a company that charges for fx education here. (Can't imagine he has any motivation to mislead) Maybe you should phone him ...

Some people do get emotional but I'd say arguing is part of the process. If i present something to the best of my knowledge and someone can definitively disprove my point then I've actually gained a new understanding and gotten something for being ...

I'll acknowledge that. But i submit that for every position taken with a retail broker, the broker had to (at the very least) take the exact opposite position against you. I don't think it matters that people are being quoted differently across ...

This has nothing to do with any "sum" There'd be no point in playing it without an edge. Sounds kind of familiar. This is the most accurate thing you've said in your last two posts. This has already been addressed and is completely irrelevant This ...

I was referring to this.

What you and your esteemed quotee fail to realize is that "negative sum" (or zero sum for that matter) does not imply a distribution of outcomes. It only says that the sum of winners and losers will be negative (or zero). Two traders trading with ...