Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Trading the XJO with CFDs

Jump to new
$xjo intra paused at 5900, sells swamped by bids, by swamping yesterdays day, attempted retest of the low, we'll have another reason for the sideline money to pile in regardless of the $aud (which itself is good reason for o/s money to keep coming)



there must be an index run by a statistician on the times when markets make lows when someone announces "theatres won't survive (x)"
the inverse of the tall building or restaurant index?
Reuters Business
@ReutersBiz
·
33m

Scorsese, Eastwood say U.S. movie theaters may not survive pandemic http://reut.rs/3cI9qeA
 
friday, punch in the face day
cash held above 5762's (referred to as the "trend" low from a pov of continuation)
cash closed 5791's
cash implied front month swooped 5778's
cash implied front month closed 5870
bulls got decent discounts
 
$xjo presses on, retail cfd moved to 70% STO (30% longs)
both price structure and retail positioning support more upside too
 
Joules MM1 said:
$xjo presses on, retail cfd moved to 70% STO (30% longs)
both price structure and retail positioning support more upside too
Click to expand...
honkers also showing reluctance to sell, daily compression favouring more upside, safety is a long way away 22330
for a decent swing long outlook honkers quietly with the bid
$hsi
 
Joules MM1 said:
how intra/inter ideas support/confirm, leading to qualitative and quantitive measures to keep building both structure and the "story"
$hsi

#education
Click to expand...

it's a pretty quiet day the type of day prop traders hate because little price width ticking over
however its a good day for untrained eyes to "see" price with less momentum, given that price structures repeat regardless their
relative sizing, however relative sizing and the context of those relative sizes mean something to all players at all times whether investing for value or trading (price alone)

the slow day allows a trader to build up and flex their decision-making speed, to define what price lengths to play thus defining self-risk

 
Joules MM1 said:
by constantly measuring and asking the basic questions about cosntruct
do the lengths match
are price lengths overlapping and if so are the overlapping price lengths impulsive or choppy themselves
always redefining risk levels is not the same as decision making

Click to expand...

to finish this small series on $hsi today
there'sa truck load of info for structure, we had an inverted extension at the open that hit and rotated on 1.272
price made a simple down up down where the "up" was itself a simple up-down-up sequence
price has so far hit a previous 1:1 ratio which bodes well as a trend continuation signal
nothing complicated but ...big but...that doesnt mean we have permission to do anything other than define risk

here's that 1:1 measure, precise, even though it can be 'argued' that coincidence is at play, the repetition of ratios with this construct
have a consistent-enough occurrence to suggest coincidence is a form of luck that's nice to have when the trade is banked
 
short-selling, selling to open (STO)
an ontological frame-work,

as an undertaker must have a clean workbench before an autopsy

here's what i learned shorting the markets from march 2003 thru 2005
"stop selling an up-trend"
plus this little ripper
"selling price that ticks up is not selling with the price it's selling the
anticipation of an unknown and unconfirmed logic found, within and about, a price that's ticking up"

anyone can apply any (emotive) logic to price but that's not trading price that's pre-empting price
apply logic to price and trading price are incisively two separate things

book building a position is different in that we need to gather evidence from an existing event(s) that qualifies
that we go further into that venture, in other words, we expand our position on a proof, that proof being, as an example,
a series of lower lows that are framed in tiers

proof is workable in that it provides levels of risk that are already measured, whereas, anticipation of proof is
not workable on that basis as there is nothing but emotive logic regardless of how much we
invoke the words "..but what about..?"

we can say that proof is provided by print
even tho we may have recently seen print that ended price in that prior direction, when we have no proof that that
price was the final print in that direction, it is because we have not seen the proof, even to it is now there for us to see
...this is a critical moment of reason, it has its own presence, we must be present to it.....

that last sentence is a wide-ranging set of suppositions, it supposes much about the viewer than it does about the price being viewed

if we were to ask or proposition ourselves with the questions of
what is it i need to see
what is it i have not seen
what is it i am not seeing
that is causing me to play against the price being printed
we may at that point untether ourselves from the vacuous disposition of being owned by an idea that is not ours

it is fair to say and hard to argue against that we cannot know everything at all times about price
however it is also fair to say that not knowing about price at all times is a workable proposition if we ask
what is it i am not seeing
what is it i need to see
what is it i have not seen
as those questions keep us in the present of what is printing and not what can or should be printed

if we were to ask those questions and realise that we simply do not have enough
procedural knowledge then that is a different proposition, however, we must have honesty about time versus task
and we must be honest to question if it is the procedural knowledge or if we have strayed from what we do know into
into the area of laze of being right

the market is never wrong, that does not mean the market is always workable
this is balanced by the truth of our conscious and unconscious competence to work within its design
keeping in mind that the auction is designed of itself, that being, always in the present,
it does not require us to lend it our intellect or emotions

so if we think of the auction as a place where we do not have to offer a forward-thinking logic
we can rely on the auction to always tell us the truth within the confines of what we know in the procedure of engaging with the auction

the auction places up us an onus to understand the mechanics of what makes price print as a guideline and not as an absolute
in that way by taking out the absolute-ness of an outcome we can give up second-guessing the future and participate in the present

if participating in the present is a challenge for the trader it is fair to say that the auction does not care
if second guessing the future extracts money from the trader it is fair to say the auction does not care
the trader who is on the other side of your trade ......does ......not ......care

you, the reader of this, you being right about price direction .......no one cares

even you.....even you do not care about being right about the price, you only care about looking good when you are right
that is the essence of trading against the trend

the for-seeing/far-seeing, anticipatory logic, emotive logic and the "what-about-isms" ....these are not of the present, rather, they are a disposition of being right
and that rightness is not connected-to, or workable-for, a longerterm profit, where that profit is soundly sought

merely giving someone a set of instructions to complete a task is not enough as price ticks over, price always ticking over does not ensure
we'll be in the present with that price to use the procedure we already have, no matter how well proven, as price is always in the present our procedure may not now be workable
what is it that i am not seeing that makes that clear to me
what is it i need to see to know my procedure is workable
what have i seen that dictates to continue or discontinue that procedure am using

the market is always right, my procedure is not always right within it
how do i know
the auction has a specific criteria, a dynamism of plays within plays that are instantly exhausted as they are instantly made available,
the further we move away, from that moment of being present, into the area of supposition, we fulfill the need to be right,
therefor it is fair to argue that being present to what price is printing and affirming the available and quantifiable risk within that idea
shall separate us, you, me from the qualitative assumptivity, that is, the need of being right and it's historic propensity to hand us our ego in a garbage bag

i cannot, over any length of time, be right about the market and expect to extract value from the market being wrong

the market is never ever wrong, it maybe weak it may transition it may be strong, it is never wrong

being in tune with the right-ness or the correct-ness of the market is brought about by asking what is workable that suits what the price is printing

having a guess is not workable
engaging all phases of an auction is not workable when the procedure is out of step with that phase
this is fine, it is a perfect and correct response to dis-engage with price when we know this is what we see from our procedure
has nothing to do with being right

to re-engage
what do i need to see
what am i seeing
what is it i have not seen
when these questions are answered yet price is still antithetic to our procedure,
we must then go further into asking what is it about procedure that is missing
and dis-engage from the auction at that time without correcting our procedure
keeping in mind that procedures are not dynamic they are at best a linear application even tho they maybe tiered to mimic dynamism

to keep you balanced, please re-read that sentence:

that (trade) procedures are not dynamic they are at best a linear application even tho they may be tiered to mimic dynamism

if it is true that price is three things:
always dynamic
always correct
always present

we can say that we are subservient, if you will, to what price ALLOWS us to see, therefor we cannot be faulted for not knowing the future as
we barely know what is beyond the immediate present

in the instance where my presence is suppositional about price
then i am in the present of supposition not of price
sure they may happenstance occur and that momentary luck needs to be seen as luck of that moment

if youre still reading, an ontological agreement is being made
by you, for yourself !

honesty is one of those tricky things, you know, thou shalt not bullsh!t thyself thing
all good on paper, great in the pithy socmed self-enamoured keyboard legend shtick

to apply honesty and have integrity while trading one must first have the technology of a self-ontological preposition

where that technology is lacking guessing is comfortably waiting

your best friend in the world is the guesser, you are available to each other 24 hours a day

to quote a great servant of the health profession
"People love to hear good things about their bad habits" *

the best bit of good news for your guessing self is a colleague who agrees with you

keep in mind that your preposition and your ontological technology are not the same as your best-guessing mate
and in most instances you do not want them to be, where, when the result expected requires a precise value by
applying an imprecise vagary borne out of a wishy-washy dialogue

the times when you do want a colleagues opinion is when you have already had a concise
dialogue and invented an ontological technology between you

if you use the same old talk it devolves into trash talk, you get trashed, price trashes you, in
the present, while your thinking is off in the hinterland

be present to price
make procedure fit that
where procedure does not fit decouple
at best you are correct and inline with price as it prints, some of the time, run with it

this is the only saying i am aware that i have thought of to be original regarding short selling an uptrend
"when you're right you get some of the points, when youre wrong you get all the points"

from 2003-2005 i got a lot of points and had a lot of best-guess-mates who agreed with me

J C-T

* sited John A. McDougall (Dr. MD)
 
Last edited:
"Breadth has been spectacular on this rally. The breadth oscillators turned to buy signals on September 28th. Now, those buy signals have expanded into overbought conditions. But overbought is a good thing when $SPX is beginning a new leg higher..." Lawrence G. McMillan
from the option strategist email
a free newsletter, a practical and educational read
 
"it can't go any higher because (x)" is not a trading a strategy

versus

it's making a series of higher highs n higher lows, in several contexts and the relative sizes are widening, so the opposing view is likely to yield small shekles and carry higher risk
 
2020
mark it on your chart, lol

Aus neg yields 101220.png
 
$xjo made a mild mannered slump, retail cfd's went Buy To Open 92% "top" clients went 96% BTO

clearly the gen consensus was index shuffle (rebalancing) is over and we're buying the dip......ah, the dip that keeps on giving

context is everything yet not always reliable if the reliance is based on a narrowly focused data idea (anecdotal or statistical)

construct is as much about phases as it is about absolute (or larger) direction
 

Similar threads

volatility
XJO Trading System
Replies
7
Views
6K
volatility
volatility
Top