There are no secret patterns and there will never be one | Page 18 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Railway tracks and other reversal and continuation patterns 130 replies

Trading systems - Never pay for one! 19 replies

What is that one forex secret you are holding back from the public??? 51 replies

CHF, EUR and GBP Calendar Trading Patterns 0 replies

two version of FF tunnel Chart, one say down, one say up, which one is correct? 3 replies

Attachments: There are no secret patterns and there will never be one
Exit Attachments

There are no secret patterns and there will never be one

  • #341
  • May 11, 2011 10:08pm May 11, 2011 10:08pm
Dear all

Thanks for all the support. There are a lot of new things learned and old thinking changed. I am currently in the process of quiting work and hiring desk to trade full time (don't wanna stay at home...).

Bear with me when I have much more time to share with you all.

Good trading and have faith

esuffw
Life is a school for the soul
  • #342
  • May 13, 2011 6:59am May 13, 2011 6:59am
esuffw ,


Would you ever consider linking up on skype for a 1hour or so chat, I would like the opportunity to chat with you sometime.
  • #343
  • May 14, 2011 1:54am May 14, 2011 1:54am
Quoting the redlion
jesse livermore said " there is nothing new in the game of speculation, is as old as the hills, what has been done will be done and whats been done has been done"
The problem with this statement is that it is simply not true.

The real tragedy of the statement is that common sense was obviously removed from its underlying premise. The premise was rigged, so that arguing against it would be deemed futile. Of course, the statement makes more sense if "speculation" had anything to do with actual trading. If trading is nothing more than speculation, then I'm out of the game first thing tomorrow morning.

The author either does not understand the terminology he uses, or has decided to misapply the term intentionally. Either way, the answer to the problem is the proper use of terminology coupled with an accurate definition of what a trader actually does in the market.

About 10 years ago, I decided to become a Trader. LOL, I had no clue what I was getting into and I had no idea where to start. I thought that learning how financial markets worked, would turn me into a trader. Oh, sure - go ahead and laugh, I'm laughing right along with you. So, I strolled into a bookstore and purchased "the book" that every college student studying Finance knows all to well, Graham & Dodd's, Security Analysis. It was a very thick book back then, and I hear it has gotten even thicker today. In fact, somewhere in my library, I think I still have my original copy with the black cover. I also picked up another book, Standard & Poors Investment Guide. Armed with this arsenal of financial and technical literary brilliance, I set out to become a "trader." Yeah, true story.

To make a very long story short, the very first thing I learned from Graham/Dodd, is what any first year Finance student learns in college; that speculating is not investing. Of course, this taught me nothing whatsoever about trading. The second (and most important) thing that I learned after reading their book was that at no time would either Graham or Dodd, teach me anything about Trading.

The major differential between Speculation and Trading, can be summed up in one word: Analysis. But, to truly understand the differentials between Speculation and Trading, one has to use a bevy of additional words and phrases, such as:

- Primary Research
- Data Analysis
- Developmental Heuristics
- Mathematical Probabilities
- Derived Signals
- Functions & Formula Design
- Integrated Output Methodologies
- System Design Architecture
- Signal Processing
- Theoretical Analysis
- Differential Signal Testing & Analysis (DSTA)
- Differential Error Analysis (DEA)
- Systemic Correlations
- System Performance Optimization
- Money Management Theory
- Money Management Design
- Money Management Integration

Speculation, has nothing to do with the above prose.

The reason that all trades are not created equal, has everything to do with the fact that not all traders are created equal due to their approach to the markets. Indeed, many people call themselves traders, while engaging in pure Speculation without even knowing it. A true trader is deeply involved with the Science as well as the Art of Trading. And, that by definition, cannot be Speculation.

I could write my own book on this subject, but I'm going to stop here, because I believe I've address the fallacy of referring to Trading as Speculation, well enough with this response.
  • #344
  • May 14, 2011 2:25am May 14, 2011 2:25am
Now, to address the OP's comment directly that there are no "secret patterns," I would simply state that if the markets truly chaotic by nature, then it would be mathematically impossible for anyone to establish consistent long-term equity growth. Of course, since there are people who have done precisely that, the statement itself cannot be true. Which involves reconciling the fact that markets are not naturally chaotic and indeed do exhibit patterns that manifest themselves with regularity and within a specific range of probability.

A better statement (question) would be something like: Why do some traders locate market patterns while others do not?

I already have a thread that will address this very issue at some point, so I won't 'double-down' here, I just wanted to set the logical argument for the fact that markets can't possibly be naturally chaotic, given the fact that some have established consistency in equity growth, which could not be a normalized occurrence in a purely randomized system. Any statement to the contrary has to be illogical at best.

If there are consistently profitable traders in the world, then by logical extension, one or more patterns must exist. It is a mere logical necessity that this statement evaluate to true. Consistent profitability, by definition, is a "pattern." And, since those profits have to come from the market itself, the market itself must yield something "consistently" detectable and that is the very definition of a "pattern."

So, whether or not patterns exist in the market, is at the very least logically irrefutable. Whether or not all traders are created equal, is highly debatable, at a minimum.

Thus, without even showing a market pattern, I've logically demonstrated that they have to exist. There is no such thing as a financially traded market with 100% losers. Somebody is winning, somewhere and at some time in the market. And, they must be doing it on a "consistent" basis, which defines the very nature of "pattern."


IMPORTANT NOTE:

This assertion does not apply to (nor should it be associated with) any Non-Directional Trading Methodology(s) such as Options Strategies, which do not necessarily require a specific directional market pattern for the creation of positive expectancy. At the same time, market patterns can and oftentimes do play a significant role in the type/kind of ND strategy deployed. In other words, the trade may or may not use a particular market pattern when executing or designing an options strategy for profit, or for the purpose of executing or designing a delta neutral options strategy for the purpose of hedging "other" risk.

I traded stock equity derivatives for years before I turned to Forex, so I just wanted to be clear on the differentials with ND type trading and the use of market patterns, or whether or not they even matter to an ND trader. Unfortunately, right now, most platforms for Retail FX traders don't offer the ability to engage in true Non-Directional strategies while trading spot. However, some Retail FX platforms do.

Ok, enough of that already. I think I've made my point.
  • #345
  • May 14, 2011 2:30am May 14, 2011 2:30am
Quoting JetTrader
The problem with this statement is that it is simply not true....
Investing = long-term (years to decades)
Speculation = medium term (weeks to years)
Trading = short-term (seconds to weeks)

Not really difficult to define.
  • #346
  • May 14, 2011 2:43am May 14, 2011 2:43am
Quoting JetTrader

Thus, without even showing a market pattern, I've logically demonstrated that they have to exist. There is no such thing as a financially traded market with 100% losers. Somebody is winning, somewhere and at some time in the market. And, they must be doing it on a "consistent" basis, which defines the very nature of "pattern."
Although I agree that there are certain repeatable patterns, I disagree with your logic. You can't just infer that there are repeatable patterns since some win consistently. If you know anything about statistics, then you know that in chaos there are always some outliers, who experience "luck" over a really extended period of time. So it might just be luck that they are winning consistently, cause in a large enough sample, there are always outliers that outperform the majority of the sample.
Take the coin toss example: Let's take 1,000,000 people who each toss coins for the next 10,000 rounds. Now it is likely that a couple of them will experience "tails" far more often than "heads". So, these people seem to consistently outperform general statistics, but in this case it is just luck.


I just wanted to point out that you can't just say repeatable patterns have to exist because some are consistently profitable, cause they might just be statistical outliers who experience an enormous amount of luck.
But through my own testing, I must say that it seems that there really are some repeatable patterns in the markets.
  • #347
  • May 14, 2011 2:51am May 14, 2011 2:51am
let's not get out of hand here. the whole point of the thread title was to give a brown eye to all the clowns that draw lines and pictures and look at the stars to determine when to trade. it really didn't deserve a chapter debating against something which the thread title is not even referring to :S
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #348
  • May 14, 2011 3:24am May 14, 2011 3:24am
Quoting Custos
Investing = long-term (years to decades)
Speculation = medium term (weeks to years)
Trading = short-term (seconds to weeks)

Not really difficult to define.

That's grossly incorrect, sorry. May I suggest, Graham/Dodd, as an aid to help you better understand the subject matter.

Trading, Investing & Speculation, are not necessarily time sensitive. You can enter a trade that lasts for a year or more (George Soros, does this all the time), an investment that lasts for 3 weeks (real estate professionals do this all the time) and a speculative flip of the proverbial coin that lasts for 60 seconds (unskilled Forex traders do this all the time). Time itself is not the differentiating factor.

There are definitions for these terms - none of which have been introduced in this thread outside of my recent post. I will however, introduce the standard definitions here, that both Graham and Dodd, would agree with in general terms:

Investing = Research and Analysis with the assurance and/or high density probability (expectation) of principle return (1) and a premium (2) correlated to the risk taken.

Speculation = Little to no Research or Analysis of the inherent risk and little to no "reasonable expectation" of the return of principle and no quantifiable measure for determining the probability for yielding a premium on risk for having made the transaction.

Trading = Every technical measure that I put in my first post and more.

Here is what happens to people who don't figure out that markets do have structure and thus produce predictable patterns:

Inserted Video
  • #349
  • May 14, 2011 3:31am May 14, 2011 3:31am
Quoting JetTrader
That's grossly incorrect, sorry....
thanks for the clarification, always glad to learn something new.
  • #350
  • May 14, 2011 4:02am May 14, 2011 4:02am
Quoting Custos
Although I agree that there are certain repeatable patterns, I disagree with your logic. You can't just infer that there are repeatable patterns since some win consistently.
Really?

What are they winning with "consistently" if not a market pattern - money management? If that were the case, every CPA on planet earth would be George Soros, or better. Money management is a function of consistent profitability, not the sole cause of consistent profitability. Most importantly, consistent profitability means making successful trades consistently. Since the market can only go in three directions (Long, Short and Horizontal), the only way to consistently take profits, is to exist the market at a net positive price differential than when you entered the market.

If you plan to make more than three (3) trades in your trading career, then by definition, you are going to have to make many net positive price differential exists (trades), within a market that only contains three (3) different possible directions for price to move subsequent to your entry. And, the only way to do that, is for each successful trade to follow a price pattern that fits somewhere in the Long, Short or Horizontal profile. Logically, irrefutable.

Thus, price patterns have to exist by logical extension. Trying to reason otherwise would force the illogical conclusion that one can have long term success generating net positive price differential exists (trades), in a market that only contained three (3) possible price actions subsequent to each entry, without a price pattern. If there are more than three (3) trades made (which must be the case in order to have long-term profitability), and at the very same time, only three (3) possible post entry price actions, then there must be at least one (1) pattern contained within each market type (Long, Short and Horizontal), in order to sustain the profitability over time.

Price goes up, down or sideways. There are no other directional dimensions for price to move, as the market's price is bound within two dimensions. Thus, in order to have multiple successful trades, one must also have a market that generates repetitive price action - that's called: Pattern.


Quoting Custos
If you know anything about statistics, then you know that in chaos there are always some outliers, who experience "luck" over a really extended period of time. So it might just be luck that they are winning consistently, cause in a large enough sample, there are always outliers that outperform the majority of the sample.
I've never met a lucky long-term successful trader. Have you? I've never met the guy or gal who went from $5,000 to over $100 million by trading their way through ripples of luck.

I do believe that you make your own "luck," however.

Quoting Custos
Take the coin toss example: Let's take 1,000,000 people who each toss coins for the next 10,000 rounds. Now it is likely that a couple of them will experience "tails" far more often than "heads". So, these people seem to consistently outperform general statistics, but in this case it is just luck.
This still assumes a false premise. Not every coin will have the same physical weighting. Some will have undergone flaws during the minting process. Some will have collected more molecules of foreign matter, given their various paths of circulation as currency. Some will vary in CG, the topology affecting aerodynamics and perimeter weighting. Not all coins will be flipped with the same initial impulse force. Not all coins will be flipped with the same inertial moment.

For a million different highly technical reasons, you cannot use that analogy to prove that patterns in the market do not exist. Unless, and until you use uniform coins with exacting physical characteristics and flip them with precise uniformity of motion, you cannot use this as a scientific ruse against patterns in the market, for what should be (by now) very obvious reasons.


Quoting Custos
I must say that it seems that there really are some repeatable patterns in the markets.
I think you are quite right to reason as much.
  • #351
  • May 14, 2011 4:06am May 14, 2011 4:06am
Quoting nubcake
let's not get out of hand here. the whole point of the thread title was to give a brown eye to all the clowns that draw lines and pictures and look at the stars to determine when to trade. it really didn't deserve a chapter debating against something which the thread title is not even referring to :S
???

The very title of the thread reads: "There are no secret patterns and there never will be one"

So, if showing the logical reason why such a statement cannot be true and then showing the logical definition of what one type of patterns looks like in the market, is not related to the topic, then I have no idea at all what would qualify as "related." LOL!
  • #352
  • May 14, 2011 4:35am May 14, 2011 4:35am
Quoting JetTrader
Really?

What are they winning with...
As I said, yes, I agree that there are very likely exploitable patterns. Just your logic is flawed. You can't just say patterns exist, because a minority is consistently profitable. It might very well just be a statistical occurence.

Let me put it another way: Take a million people and let them place 10,000 random trades. By law of statistics, some of them are bound to be very successful and some are bound to be extreme failures.

Let's also take richard dennis for example. He was successful all his life until suddenly his strategy didn't work anymore. Now either he was lucky all his life or the pattern stopped to work. Both are possibilities. Cause you can be lucky for a really extended period of time.



Quoting JetTrader
I've never met a lucky long-term successful trader. Have you?
Don't know what that has to do with anything.

Quoting JetTrader
This still assumes a false premise....
god, now this is just bs you were writing, of course we just stop considering physical properties of a coin for one moment. So, let's instead just use a computer that is generating randomly "1"s and "0"s 10,000 times for a million people. You are bound to have some people that will get vastly more 1s than 0s. and the other way around. That's the nature of large numbers. Thus I think my example is still valid

Now again, I am not saying that they are all lucky, I actually also think that there are patterns.

But your reasoning is flawed to come to that conlcusion.

Anyways, good debate.
  • #353
  • Edited 4:38am May 14, 2011 4:37am | Edited 4:38am
Quoting JetTrader
???

The very title of the thread reads: "There are no secret patterns and there never will be one"

So, if showing the logical reason why such a statement cannot be true and then showing the logical definition of what one type of patterns looks like in the market, is not related to the topic, then I have no idea at all what would qualify as "related." LOL!
let me 'simplify' this for you since you don't seem to be picking up what i am putting down... the thread right here is basically saying forget the steve nison candlesticks bs, forget the gann magic intro nega nutron mega indi, forget the trendline break to the far side of saturns current orbit in reference to the moons degree of brightness at 2.85 degrees above the horizon in june... forget it all and stop looking to crack a code where there is no code. there is only flow of money one way or the other for reasons outside of quasi-pseudo-nega-posi-flux capacitor-retro cookie super indicator and outside of the magical 3 monkeys sitting on a tree engulfing the sun god ra inverse bear 5 bar candlestick pattern.

it's not that hard to understand the title, y'know?

you have bombarded the thread under an incorrect assessment of what the point is/was. it's not that you have said anything wrong or stupid like a lot of monkeys on the forum love to do with their naivety, it's just that you are trying to slay a dragon that doesn't exist here. the battle is elsewhere.

or to put it another way... chill out brother, you are preaching to the choir.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #354
  • May 14, 2011 5:36am May 14, 2011 5:36am
Quoting Custos
It might very well just be a statistical occurence.
Just a "statistical occurrence" that somebody found a way to build a financial fortune out of trading the markets over a prolonged period of time? And, you are calling the logical definition for a repeatable pattern in the market that I provided you, flawed?

Are you thinking about the words that you type?

How is it possible for a trader to fail in repeating to capitalize on more than one market pattern, when the market only has three (3) directions that it can move after the entry, LOL! It is not possible without that same market producing at least one (1) pattern that enables the trader to enter and exit the market with profit, in one (1) of three (3) directions per trade. There are only three (3) directions for the market, yet the trader has produce far more than three (3) trades to produce long-term profitability.

Therefore, the trader is going to produce multiple trades in each of the three (3) directions, over the course of their trading career, unless they specialize in just one market type - which only makes it even more glaringly obvious that the trader must have traded a pattern in order to achieve long-term profitability trading in only one (1) direction. None of this can be accomplished outside of closing multiple positions that adhere to at least one (1) pattern within the market, by definition.

Read it over until you get it - when the light bulb goes off, post your "ah ha" moment.

Quoting Custos
Let me put it another way: Take a million people and let them place 10,000 random trades. By law of statistics, some of them are bound to be very successful and some are bound to be extreme failures.
Which unfortunately has nothing to do with whether or not any of them encountered a market that was generating a normalized price pattern during the course of their random trade. You are unknowingly comparing apples to oranges. One thing has nothing to do with the other, logically.

Just because 1 million people place any number of trades, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the market produces price patterns.

Quoting Custos
Let's also take richard dennis for example. He was successful all his life until suddenly his strategy didn't work anymore. Now either he was lucky all his life or the pattern stopped to work. Both are possibilities. Cause you can be lucky for a really extended period of time.
Richard, was a "trend" follower in a particular market and at a particular time when anyone capable pinning a tail on a donkey would have made profits over a considerable period of time. He was a classic pyramid trader of epic proportions and he held positions longer than average, so during a specific period of time, he netted higher profitability.

But, this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with price patterns in the market. In fact, the Turtles (those he helped to train) could care less about "patterns" because the were willing to take the losses that invariably caused by several price patterns still in use today. What stopped Richard, and other "trend followers" of the 70's dead in their tracks, was the hyper-volatility of the late 70's and the 1980's. When the market gets Horizontal (which is what I've been trying to tell you) you cannot use the same "trend following" strategies. That's what took the wind out his sails ultimately, not the fact that market patterns don't exist. Even Richard, himself would tell you this.

Quoting Custos
god, now this is just bs you were writing, of course we just stop considering physical properties of a coin for one moment.
Is it "bs" because you incorrectly failed to see the natural error in attempting to use dissimilar coins in dissimilar tosses - a timeless and classic error that you stepped head first directly into? Or, is it "bs" because you understand the nature of the dissimilarities that I outlined and you can offer a technical rebuttal for why the elements of dissimilarity are not appropriate for concluding that you cannot use such a faulty experiment to exclude the existence of price patterns in the market?

Quoting Custos
So, let's instead just use a computer that is generating randomly "1"s and "0"s 10,000 times for a million people. You are bound to have some people that will get vastly more 1s than 0s. and the other way around. That's the nature of large numbers. Thus I think my example is still valid
Your example misses the point entire, primarily because you insist on comparing apples with oranges. The outlier theory does not preclude or include market patterns one way or another. There is no logical nexus between outliers and the existence of market patterns. Period. Any clear thinking person has already understood this.

Quoting Custos
Now again, I am not saying that they are all lucky, I actually also think that there are patterns.
Which means that you just created a circular argument. You just concluded that:

A) Market patterns don't exist because outliers exist and outliers could be the reason why consistent profitability exists.

B) The outliers which might be responsible for producing consistent profitability, are themselves, patterns.

That is the very definition of circular. Which means that no matter how logical the facts reveal themselves to you, you will always either:

1) Ignore the facts and continue to misapply a failed underlying premise.

2) Argue against yourself by using an underlying premise that defeats its own purpose.

You've successfully done both.
  • #355
  • May 14, 2011 5:52am May 14, 2011 5:52am
Quoting nubcake
or to put it another way... chill out brother, you are preaching to the choir.

Quite frankly, I don't think you even understood a word of what you just said and I most certainly am 100% confident that you have not understood a solitary word of what I just said.

I am definitely not preaching to the crowd, if this thread has anything to do with: "There are no secret patterns and there will never be one," which moves from the singular to the plural in error, while stating that which any truly successful Technical Trader already knows to be false.

If you have a technical rebuttal to anything I've laid down here, I'd be more than happen to review it. But, thus far, I've read nothing from you that even remotely tells me you have the slightest clue about what was just strolled out for you.

"The flow" of the market? Are you kidding me! "Price Action?" Are you serious!

Define "Price Action" for me, please. Outline the heuristics and the metrics for establishing the existence of "Price Action." Much more importantly, try defining "Price Action" without showing me a "Price Pattern," and I'll eat my hat right here in this thread. Furthermore, if you attempt to define "Price Action" absent its heuristics and/or its metrics, then you will have eaten your own hat in this thread.

You cannot possibly define that which has no parameters. And, that which has parameters, must by definition have structure. That which has structure, must by definition have pattern. So, since you put so much reliability in "The Flow," (aka: Price Action) while attempting to mach the eloquence of structured market definitions as being causal for consistency in profitability, then you should have no problem in defining it.

I strongly suggest you re-read the title of this thread and then re-read my initial post. You could not be further off base if you tried. Bro.
  • #356
  • May 14, 2011 6:08am May 14, 2011 6:08am
I'll see you guys tomorrow, but I do expect to see an articulation of "Price Action" absent "Price Pattern." If you can't produce at least that much, then this entire thread eats itself.

The OP states that "Price Action" and "Money Management" are essentially all that is necessary to be profitable long-term. I say otherwise, and have given ample introduction as to why Patterns do exist and why Money Management alone won't cut it.

I am also now saying, that you cannot physically or logically define "Price Action," without at the very same time, defining that which the OP claims does not exist. So, by definition, that means that if you are able to define "Price Action," then by doing so, you at the very same time prove that "Price Action" does not exist - which is circular. By defining the very thing the OP asserts as true, he excludes it from existence at the very same time, which is simply impossible. This is why I state in the very first part of my initial post that the entire underlying premise of this thread is in error.

Else, you are forced to admit that patterns do indeed exist in the market. And, if they do exist, then you will need the technical tools and/or skill to detect their presence.

You see, this is why I love having these kinds of debates with people who think they really know trading, because it is so ease to expose the fact that they really don't.

Cheers and Better Days!
  • #357
  • May 14, 2011 6:12am May 14, 2011 6:12am
if you are looking for a fight with someone you won't find it with me. if you have so much to say why not start a thread of your own and rock out. what you write is at least interesting to read and is likely more useful and thought-out than most of the crap on the forum...

but, whatever it is you are trying to win here you can consider won. game over.

edit : keep in mind that some of us might not necessarily be disagreeing with you. food for thought.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #358
  • May 14, 2011 6:16am May 14, 2011 6:16am
Quoting JetTrader
You see, this is why I love having these kinds of debates with people who think they really know trading, because it is so ease to expose the fact that they really don't.
look to the top left of this post. see my name? see what it says under it? enjoy. this argument / fight of yours is all yours alone. peace out.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #359
  • May 14, 2011 6:29am May 14, 2011 6:29am
Quoting nubcake
if you are looking for a fight with someone you won't find it with me. if you have so much to say why not start a thread of your own and rock out. what you write is at least interesting to read and is likely more useful and thought-out than most of the crap on the forum...

but, whatever it is you are trying to win here you can consider won. game over.

edit : keep in mind that some of us might not necessarily be disagreeing with you. food for thought.
I'm simply disagreeing with the thread's underlying premise and giving logical detail as to why, as well as an alternate premise that better fits the reality of the market. You told me that I was essentially off-topic for doing so, as if my contradiction of the underling premise did not exist itself. I simply pointed out that if my contradiction of the underlying premise was not on-topic, then I don't know what else would qualify. You then told me that I was preaching to the choir, because this thread was about something that I did not understand. So, I simply asked you to define "Price Action" (aka: "The Flow"), without also defining "Price Pattern."

I'm still waiting for that definition from someone - heck, anyone.

Define Price Action without defining Price Pattern. It can't be done. And, that fact turns the entire premise of this thread upside down and places it squarely on its own head. So, yes. I guess I am done here.

Sorry, for the intrusion, but when I see thread titles like: Patterns Don't Exist..Blah, Blah, Blah!, I start to wonder about the 95% who don't make it and the reasons why they fail, long-term.

I do have a thread open and yes, I will be covering Market Patterns as well as a few other topics along the way. Rest assured, if market patterns did not exist, I could not possibly trade this currencies - nor would I even try.

Ok, enough! Final cheers, now.
  • #360
  • May 14, 2011 6:32am May 14, 2011 6:32am
Quoting nubcake
look to the top left of this post. see my name? see what it says under it? enjoy. this argument / fight of yours is all yours alone. peace out.
You might find my other thread useful then - maybe. Who knows, you never know. I'll hit it probably once or twice a week. There might be some value in it for you. Search my UID for details and location on this forum, if you are interested.
1 trader viewing now