# ASX speccy scalp diary



## Gringotts Bank (1 October 2015)

- Another trading diary whilst I wait for a new account to set up.
- Constructive input welcome.
- sub 10c stocks.
- Not real money.
- Buying momentum and turnover only.
- Will explore holding time - scalp *vs* close position EOD *vs* holding into the next day
- Will ensure there's enough volume to take at least a 5k position.

Buy CHP @ .007


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 October 2015)

Buy:

AJM @ .037
AWD @ .029
AUZ @ .012


----------



## Trembling Hand (1 October 2015)

Your entries are @ market?


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 October 2015)

Trembling Hand said:


> Your entries are @ market?




Buying at market, and selling either at market *or* on the offer if I do it live (unlikely).  And there has to be _roughly _enough volume available at that price.  But I'm not going to be too strict about it.  I'll probably only do this for a short time.

Also, I'm very likely to change my rules, but will document this when I do.  Otherwise ppl get confused.


----------



## skc (1 October 2015)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Buying at market, and selling either at market *or* on the offer if I do it live (unlikely).  And there has to be _roughly _enough volume available at that price.  But I'm not going to be too strict about it.  I'll probably only do this for a short time.
> 
> Also, I'm very likely to change my rules, but will document this when I do.  Otherwise ppl get confused.




Given the small value nature of these stocks... you have to assume buying and selling on market and crossing the spread. Just because there were enough volume done at the price doesn't mean you will get it. You need to be quick to line up in the queue as soon as you've bought... whereas in real life you are probably struggling to decide whether to wait i queue or let it run.

Some year back, someone ran a stockmarket game without taking into account of this... and the winner literally returned a few thousand % because he just kept buying something @ 0.1c and selling and 0.2c (the game allowed based on using "touch" only).

So if you are going to sim something make it conservative imo.


----------



## VSntchr (1 October 2015)

skc said:


> Some year back, someone ran a stockmarket game without taking into account of this... and the winner literally returned a few thousand % because he just kept buying something @ 0.1c and selling and 0.2c (the game allowed based on using "touch" only).



One of the first lessons I learnt in my introduction to market structure. 
Gladly, that was one that I didn't have to pay any 'tuition' for...a few days of watching the depth on commsec (in between uni classes) had me realise that it wasn't as simple as I first thought and I abandoned the idea.
I think it was something like Toro Energy and I wanted to buy and sell between 14c and 14.5c.


----------



## sasch (1 October 2015)

Gringotts Bank said:


> - Another trading diary whilst I wait for a new account to set up.
> - Constructive input welcome.
> - sub 10c stocks.
> - Not real money.
> ...




Are you going to set a portfolio size? 

This will obviously determine your returns, as you are to get 
in and out of more trades with a larger amount of capital. Whereas in reality, your opportunities could
be constrained, stuck in one or two under performing stocks with only limited capital.

You have bought four different parcels so far, are they $5k each?


----------



## skyQuake (1 October 2015)

skc said:


> Given the small value nature of these stocks... you have to assume buying and selling on market and crossing the spread. Just because there were enough volume done at the price doesn't mean you will get it. You need to be quick to line up in the queue as soon as you've bought... whereas in real life you are probably struggling to decide whether to wait i queue or let it run.
> 
> Some year back, someone ran a stockmarket game without taking into account of this... and the winner literally returned a few thousand % because he just kept buying something @ 0.1c and selling and 0.2c (the game allowed based on using "touch" only).
> 
> So if you are going to sim something make it conservative imo.




With those types of games you could also find the most illiquid share with the widest spreads. Put in an ask 1 tick above best bid, buy shares in game, then canx that ask and put in a bid 1 tick below best ask. Sell shares in game.
Rinse and repeat then get banned


----------



## peter2 (1 October 2015)

The thin market depth is a real concern these days. It's much harder buying breakouts one tic above my BO level and my slippage is increasing. I've also noticed that I'm missing more trades and getting pathetically small parcels (with full brokerage) more often.

It's what's happening now and I'm not complaining. I have had to adjust my entry techniques to minimise these disadvantages. 

I only mention this because we don't notice these things when paper trading. If you are going to paper trade scalping spec stocks then imo your results will be too good to be true. 

It won't be a problem if you are accumulating a portfolio of spec stocks and holding for the few huge % winners, but that's not scalping. 

Whatever you do, you'll get experience and if this helps you formulate a profitable system then it won't be wasted effort. Enjoy.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 October 2015)

Will probably keep it to <5 stocks sasch.  On any given day it's unusual to have more than this number of stocks with a turnover greater than say 300k.


----------



## Trembling Hand (1 October 2015)

peter2 said:


> It won't be a problem if you are accumulating a portfolio of spec stocks and holding for the few huge % winners, but that's not scalping.




By the way - holding a position any longer than a minute or two, preferably even less, is not scalping. But peps don't know what scalping is and just like to use the name so the whole method has become hijacked by people who like to say  "I scalp" :cowboy:


----------



## Gringotts Bank (2 October 2015)

Buy NSR @ .029

Sell CHP @ .08


----------



## Gringotts Bank (2 October 2015)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Buy NOR @ .029
> 
> Sell CHP @ .08




Should say NOR @ .029


----------



## Gringotts Bank (2 October 2015)

peter2 said:


> The thin market depth is a real concern these days. It's much harder buying breakouts one tic above my BO level and my slippage is increasing. I've also noticed that I'm missing more trades and getting pathetically small parcels (with full brokerage) more often.




I'm not sure how much volume is dark pool in microcaps.  Seems like it might be quite low.


----------



## kid hustlr (2 October 2015)

peter2 said:


> The thin market depth is a real concern these days. It's much harder buying breakouts one tic above my BO level and my slippage is increasing. I've also noticed that I'm missing more trades and getting pathetically small parcels (with full brokerage) more often.
> 
> It's what's happening now and I'm not complaining. I have had to adjust my entry techniques to minimise these disadvantages.
> 
> ...




Outside the top 100 the ASX liquidity is really bad. Are we expecting this trend to continue or it's just a cyclical thing?


----------



## skc (2 October 2015)

kid hustlr said:


> Outside the top 100 the ASX liquidity is really bad. Are we expecting this trend to continue or it's just a cyclical thing?




Certain stocks have better liquidity than others.  But... what do you define as bad? 

Liquidity = lots of buyers and sellers. When you get on the right stock though, you might prefer there to be not many sellers.

Poor liquidity can sometimes helps too. BKL was pretty illiquid at times but look at the sort of run that it's capable of.

On the other hand, I am often surprised by how good the liquidity is on some penny stocks. Like SOR today... a random, zero content article and you get 300-400k volume in the top bid of a 20c stock. That is a lot of silly retail punters!


----------



## kid hustlr (3 October 2015)

skc said:


> Certain stocks have better liquidity than others.  But... what do you define as bad?
> 
> Liquidity = lots of buyers and sellers. When you get on the right stock though, you might prefer there to be not many sellers.
> 
> ...




Yes obviously if you are in a stock and its running to the upside low liquidity is great because if someone wants in they need to constantly pay up.

As a general rule liquidity is a good thing and the more the better in my view. 

If you are running a large amount of funds a huge portion of the aussie market is just off limits due to lack of turnover - this is not a good thing in my view and i believe leads to a self fulfilling prophecy.

We want traders, be it retail punters or overseas punters to be able to exit and enter the market with confidence and know they aren't paying a couple of % clip each way.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 October 2015)

I haven't been watching this.

Sell NOR@30  profit $170
*Hold *AUZ (currently down $835)
Sell AJM @54 profit $2295
Sell AWD @31 profit $345

(prev CHM sold for profit $715)

Closed profit $3525
Liquidation value $2690

What does this all mean?

It means I will become extremely rich.  :

I got lucky, obviously.  Wasn't even watching.


----------

