This move up is expected(if not late) considering the big downward action the last few days. I don't think it's a good spot to go long. It can easily reverse and crash down further.

60% are long gbpusd? That's insane.

Didn't expect it to retest the 1.2 for a while, but it actually looks like it just might do it today.

If only we could find some big event this year that would explain why gbp is doing so badly.

Anyone started a pool on when Tim will blow up yet?

I've also exhausted my patience explaining as if to a child who refuses to acknowledge reality. Negative balances happen all the time. This was simply a major event that brought it to public scrutiny. It will happen again, and people like you who ...

Now I know you don't know enough to talk about this. Negative balances can happen anytime. Last week was simply a perfect storm that brought down brokers and made the news. The story is almost identical everytime it happens. People think that ...

Of course most traders agree with you. They are cut from the same cloth, thinking they understand what they are trading when they really don't. Frankly, traders like you endanger my funds. Those rules are meant to protect sensible traders from ...

Simplest terms? Because the rest of the free world is not being regulated as heavily, and will eventually pay the price for it. The NFA is not forcing you to keep 20k with your broker. It is forcing you to put up the capital needed to cover your ...

Gambling at casinos is basically 1:1 leverage, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If anything, this weakens your case.

You can keep repeating the idea that leverage was not what caused the brokers to go broke all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it was indeed the issue. It's not hard to see why the biggest brokers had a higher probability of being ...

It's quite simple. The brokers are simply not at fault. You can't blame them. Their clients traded on their own free will which led to the crash and burn of their accounts. They were then not able to get those clients to pay off the money owed due ...

That's the whole point. You're not supposed to be able to reduce your overall exposure like that. When you are allowed to do that, you move the risk of catastrophic failure from the individual to the entire group of innocent people who are trading ...

This is a mindset problem I find prevalent in retail traders. You are not risking $200. Your maximum risk is always what it would be if the pair you are trading disappeared suddenly. Obviously having to put up more margin isn't the better deal for ...

risk management/due diligence. It's actually quite a wonder all brokers don't want that information.

It's the same kind of people who don't understand why they owe negative balances.

Basically this is a whole rant about not being able to borrow large sums of money for very little collateral. In every other situation, the borrower would be laughed at. Why is it that in the forex community, such rants are agreed with and even ...

that looks extremely interesting. Care to share more?

Your king won because the only faction that posed danger to him offered up the court jester as an opponent.

hey guys I'm loving the effort you're putting into testing this. Just want to point out, in case you missed it, that the way this style of trading works, you can only be in 1 trade at any one time. so for a 800 TP target, that might lock up your ...