Stating The Obvious and The Quest For Wisdom | Page 5 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Despair means - obvious 14 replies

Wisdom and virtue 4 replies

The quest for the best forex trading system 28 replies

The quest to be a Millionaire 16 replies

Wit and Wisdom of Wall Street 0 replies

Attachments: Stating The Obvious and The Quest For Wisdom
Exit Attachments

Stating The Obvious and The Quest For Wisdom

  • #81
  • Mar 3, 2010 4:31pm Mar 3, 2010 4:31pm
Quoting jpat1023
Semantics...
You didn't clarify we could count a buyer multiple times, so it made it sound like you meant 1:1 in terms of people...
I said and I quote:

"For every buyer there must be a seller so the number always stays constant. There are never more buyers than sellers and vice versa."

Let's take a look at your example:

Large trader wants buy 1,000 lots

10 smaller traders wants to sell 100 lots each

The buyer will transact with each small trader therefore 10 transactions 1:1.

So let's take a look:

"For every buyer there must be a seller"

Transaction 1: LG v. ST
Transaction 2: LG v. ST
repeat 8 more times... Therefore every time the LG bought one small trader sold. 1:1 repeated 10 times.

"There are never more buyers than sellers and vice versa."

The ratio is 1:1 all the way through the process.
  • #82
  • Mar 3, 2010 4:35pm Mar 3, 2010 4:35pm
Quoting Deusomega
I said and I quote:

"For every buyer there must be a seller so the number always stays constant. There are never more buyers than sellers and vice versa."

Let's take a look at your example:

Large trader wants buy 1,000 lots

10 smaller traders wants to sell 100 lots each

The buyer will transact with each small trader therefore 10 transactions 1:1.

So let's take a look:

"For every buyer there must be a seller"

Transaction 1: LG v. ST
Transaction 2: LG v. ST
repeat 8 more times... Therefore every time the LG bought one small trader...
Lol, who are you arguing with? You honestly seem to be trying to create a problem out of thin air.

EDIT: Could you clarify the meaning of ST and LG for us please?
Living the adventure in my head.
  • #83
  • Mar 3, 2010 4:35pm Mar 3, 2010 4:35pm
Quoting Deusomega
I said and I quote:

"For every buyer there must be a seller so the number always stays constant. There are never more buyers than sellers and vice versa."

Let's take a look at your example:

Large trader wants buy 1,000 lots

10 smaller traders wants to sell 100 lots each

The buyer will transact with each small trader therefore 10 transactions 1:1.

So let's take a look:

"For every buyer there must be a seller"

Transaction 1: LG v. ST
Transaction 2: LG v. ST
repeat 8 more times... Therefore every time the LG bought one small trader sold....
Alright buddy, we have already cleared this up, me, along with others posting here thought you meant number of people buying and number of people selling...now that we know you did not, we can move on, thanks for the clarification.
  • #84
  • Mar 3, 2010 4:38pm Mar 3, 2010 4:38pm
Quoting Leonlorenzo
Lol, who are you arguing with? You honestly seem to be trying to create a problem out of thin air.
I'm not arguing with anyone. jpat and I meant the exact same thing.
  • #85
  • Mar 3, 2010 4:42pm Mar 3, 2010 4:42pm
Quoting Deusomega
I'm not arguing with anyone. jpat and I meant the exact same thing.
??

I think it must be time for bed.
Living the adventure in my head.
  • #86
  • Mar 3, 2010 4:43pm Mar 3, 2010 4:43pm
Trading and Exchanges finally arrived at the library. I love OhioLink!
  • #87
  • Mar 3, 2010 9:46pm Mar 3, 2010 9:46pm
Lots of great posts you guys. Unfortunately, I can't jump in until tomorrow.

A quick response though regarding the 1:1 buyer to seller dilema. Orderflow in the acedemic sense is concerned with volume at bid vs. volume at ask. Market Delta calculates this for you in their delta charts. It's basically net orderflow, volume at the bid + volume at the ask. The net flow will be positive or negative and the idea is that imbalances can take some time to sort out, causing a mini trend i.e. sustained directional price discovery/quote adjustments until order flow nets to zero and supply and demand find equilibrium again.

Orderflow measurements will be different depending on which points in time you begin counting it. Because FX dealers prefer to end the day flat, it would make sense to start counting at the open and trade intraday imbalances. I have not done much with this by the way. The problem again is data. If anyone is interested in this, futures will be your best bet. I've read more than one paper that finds net orderflow and market returns to be 80%+ positively correlated using futures data.

If any of you are really good at building excell spreadsheet calculators, PM me. I have a project for you. It might turn up nothing, but what I've found with some free time and a calculator has been significant to say the least. The problem is that Market Delta's delta chart and my calculator disagree, and I strongly wonder why. Anyways...

I'll be back and ready to go tomorrow. I'm still very curious to hear input on all your ultimate data wish lists.
  • #88
  • Mar 3, 2010 10:06pm Mar 3, 2010 10:06pm
One more thing...

The implication of a measured and quantifiable order imbalance, is the high probability that price will soon be adjusted. This is so because if you are a dealer and you count on making the spread and the only way to make the spread is to make a market at equilibrium prices, what are you going to do to your prices if your clients are net buyers or sellers? The answer is simple, but it's really hard to carry over to the real world and make it practical/exploitable, at least so far... I have the knowledge (I'm pretty sure), I just don't have the data or what I do have is impractical for me to use at this point.
  • #89
  • Mar 3, 2010 10:25pm Mar 3, 2010 10:25pm
We may have read a few of the same papers Scotty
  • #90
  • Mar 4, 2010 2:39am Mar 4, 2010 2:39am
Quoting Leonlorenzo
I'm not sure of the purpose of the Pm's you sent to me. You asked no questions and I'm unsure what kind of response you would like. I agree with one thing you have said... the use of vouches. I have asked for my vouches to be removed in the past and have stated more than once that members should be somehow verified for profitability before being given them. The problem is, i suppose, that there would be very few members given the badge should profitability be a criteria for them being given.

The poster I called a pleb, he speaks in clichés, and...
firstly - "your a pleb" should be "you're". nitpicking, but if you are going to kick someone in the nuts you should at least aim for between the legs *shrug*

vouches - lolz, if vouches represented profitability then most of us would be rolling in it. i see it more as showing who has more than a retards ability to comprehend... but then again, i myself have vouches. conundrum.

back on topic - often i can't see the forest for the trees, and apparently there is no spoon but i see a damn spoon. HUALUGHAGLUAL *explode*
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #91
  • Mar 4, 2010 2:49am Mar 4, 2010 2:49am
Quoting Leonlorenzo
Lol, who are you arguing with? You honestly seem to be trying to create a problem out of thin air.

EDIT: Could you clarify the meaning of ST and LG for us please?

Large Trader
Small Trader

At least that is how I read it to be.
Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better. ~ Jim Rohn
  • #92
  • Mar 4, 2010 2:53am Mar 4, 2010 2:53am
Quoting LasVahGoose
Large Trader
Small Trader

At least that is how I read it to be.
Yeah that's what I meant idk why I wrote LG lol. LARGE GUY lol
  • #93
  • Mar 4, 2010 9:03am Mar 4, 2010 9:03am
Quoting nubcake
firstly - "your a pleb" should be "you're". nitpicking*
Sorry, Ill PM you my primary and secondary schools address so you can send them a letter of complaint.
Living the adventure in my head.
  • #94
  • Mar 4, 2010 9:11am Mar 4, 2010 9:11am
Quoting Deusomega
Yeah that's what I meant idk why I wrote LG lol. LARGE GUY lol
I was actually taking the Micheal, and was going to continue on by asking more obvious questions with obvious answers. You seemed to enjoy teaching us something we already knew yesterday (1 lot is sold for every one bought). But, it seems the 'LG and ST' question wasn't so straight forward. I assumed LG = Long, and ST = Short. Not that it matters, in the context of what you were saying it still made sense.
Living the adventure in my head.
  • #95
  • Mar 4, 2010 1:00pm Mar 4, 2010 1:00pm
Quoting Leonlorenzo
Sorry, Ill PM you my primary and secondary schools address so you can send them a letter of complaint.

Usually the your/you're thing gets under my skin as well, but your response had me rollin'!
  • #96
  • Mar 4, 2010 2:39pm Mar 4, 2010 2:39pm
Quoting Leonlorenzo
I was actually taking the Micheal, and was going to continue on by asking more obvious questions with obvious answers. You seemed to enjoy teaching us something we already knew yesterday (1 lot is sold for every one bought). But, it seems the 'LG and ST' question wasn't so straight forward. I assumed LG = Long, and ST = Short. Not that it matters, in the context of what you were saying it still made sense.
To be fair I was merely trying to clarify my position when someone said I was misinterpreting something. And I wasn't the one who mentioned the lots first I merely went with this to try to better explain what I was saying. In the end both I and jpat were saying the same thing. And I admit I may have clarified my position a little too "strongly" which came off as argumentative.
  • #97
  • Edited 11:59pm Mar 4, 2010 11:49pm | Edited 11:59pm
Scotty,

Thought you may like this post, if you haven't already read it.
http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...9&postcount=73


Here is another one that is good too.
http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...4&postcount=53



.
Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better. ~ Jim Rohn
  • #98
  • Mar 5, 2010 4:30am Mar 5, 2010 4:30am
Quoting hanover
I understand the basics of DIBS. I see the inside bar merely as a tool for facilitating a 'low risk' entry, i.e. a tight initial stoploss opening the possibility for a high RR trade. The idea is supposedly that the high and low of the IB provide some kind of S/R; however (everything else being equal) I doubt that an X pip IB is likely to provide much advantage over any randomly selected X pip range.
I came to the same conclusion. The IB is merely a way to minimize the cost of the many failed entries. Also, the rule to only trade in the direction of the price to open relationship is probably the strength of the DIBS strategy. I've also noticed that the time that was selected does seem to be strategically placed on a majority of days such that there is only one directional "heat" on the opening price. That's a very important factor when stopouts are at stake. It just occurred to me that if in fact the IB in this strategy is really no better than a random entry, then a zone could be set up on the opening range, and held long/short for the 6-7 hours the trend seems to persist for, or held into a longer term trade. I'm sure that though has occurred to some others.
  • #99
  • Mar 5, 2010 4:50am Mar 5, 2010 4:50am
Quoting LasVahGoose
Scotty,

Thought you may like this post, if you haven't already read it.
http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...9&postcount=73


Here is another one that is good too.
http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...4&postcount=53



.


Hey LasVah,

Thanks for linking me back to those posts. I have not read that tid bit from Gaston in quite some time, but it resonates with what I've been coming to in my own thinking. It's funny how as you study and continue to read the same thing again how nuances in thought will jump out at you. When Gaston speaks of the imbalace of supply and demand/ bulls and bears it get's back to the heart of the orderflow issue. What moves price? Orderflow imbalance.

In my own studies, using the data I use and making inferences from things like Gaston's avatar saying "orderflow sniper," I believe that to trade orderflow involves understanding what constitutes a significant imbalance of bulls and bears. I've been assigning ratios to the bulls/bears and have found very interesting peculiarities. The question I'm working to answer is, what ratio of bulls to bears (buy vs sell volume), is considered to be significant enough to 'snipe?' I see even small imbalances affect price and I'd consider this information tradable, but I scratch my head when i see Darkstar saying he only trades a few times per month and is willing to put 12.5% on the deal. What kind of imbalance ratio is he looking for?

I find it fascinating that guys like Gaston and Darkstar figured this stuff out in the first place. It's common sense stuff when you get down to it, but I'm very curious to know how their journey's led them to exploring orderflow trading strategies.

Again, anyone who knows how to put together excell spreadsheet calculators, pm me. Heck, maybe I should get a life and figure out how to do it on my own.

  • #100
  • Mar 5, 2010 4:58am Mar 5, 2010 4:58am
Quoting Scotty B
[font=Times New Roman][size=3]
Hey LasVah,

[color=black][font=Verdana]Thanks for linking me back to those posts. I have not read that tid bit from Gaston in quite some time, but it resonates with what I've been coming to in my own thinking. It's funny how as you study and continue to read the same thing again how nuances in thought will jump out at you. When Gaston speaks of the imbalace of supply and demand/ bulls and bears it get's back to the heart of the orderflow issue. What moves price? Orderflow...
Here is another one on order flow:
http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...5&postcount=83
Don't wish it were easier, wish you were better. ~ Jim Rohn
0 traders viewing now