How do spot the money that is entering

[ruthlessimon]

That reversal is what generally happens, no?

This is a typical market.



The key aspect is time though. It's a massive steamer, looks like it's about to turn... but there's 10seconds remaining

[ruthlessimon]

That said, here's another one:



This time it had a bonkers early steam, which corrected (i.e. reversed) - only to get pummeled down again

[ShaunWhite]

I think this conversation just demonstrates how many opportunities there are, and you're both right.

'The bounce' is definately a thing you can trade and Si is also right that these levels aren't necessarily respected if signifcant money is causing the move. Afterall others have been pushed through on the way to the lastest one.

It's quite interesting to see how weak these moves are sometimes....the price is moving but backers aren't necessaily putting much more money on the table than the layers (obv or visa versa). These seem to be just as much to do with orders being cancelled as orders being taken. The BF chart doesn't show this because that just shows the total matched.

It's hard to spot by looking at the flashing numbers (and the traded vol col) but if you have lightening mental maths and never blink it's just about noticable....i think, and it should theoretically make it easier to guess whether a pullback(aka bounce) & break or a bounce & reverse is more likley?

[ruthlessimon]

I think this conversation just demonstrates how many opportunities there are, and you're both right.

I'm not sure if my bit is right .. because I've literally taken the same sample & looked at the steam from an "IP% perspective"

Backing after a 3% move is a losing trade (-62 ticks) through May.

But that "3%", on average, was a 10 tick steam.

Backing the favs that steamed 10 ticks through May was (+58 ticks)

Wtf!?! Ideas Shaun?

[Euler]

Tan Arabiq_10075519_19_09_44.png

[Derek27]

I hope Luca understands all this or the questions will follow.

[arbitrage16]

Tan Arabiq_10075519_19_09_44.png

hmmm, I'll bite - how does this pertain to the notion of identifying money entering the market?

[arbitrage16]

I think this conversation just demonstrates how many opportunities there are, and you're both right.

I'm not sure if my bit is right .. because I've literally taken the same sample & looked at the steam from an "IP% perspective"

Backing after a 3% move is a losing trade (-62 ticks) through May.

But that "3%", on average, was a 10 tick steam.

Backing the favs that steamed 10 ticks through May was (+58 ticks)

These kind of stats are fine, but what allowances are made for opposition from other runners? If a runner "steaming 3%" (LOL!) is backed purely on that then of course it's not going to work because there are at least 5 other factors I can think of that determine the veracity of that move.

[Greco]

very stupid question guys but how do you display the 'average increase per second' above the ladders?

[Dallas]

how do you display the 'average increase per second' above the ladders?

Settings > Edit Settings > Display
and tick the 'Calculate MA' box

[Greco]

Cheers Dallas, just found an old thread, trying to get the correct interval setting with the refresh rate is proving difficult

[ruthlessimon]

These kind of stats are fine, but what allowances are made for opposition from other runners? If a runner "steaming 3%" (LOL!) is backed purely on that then of course it's not going to work because there are at least 5 other factors I can think of that determine the veracity of that move.

Really? If markets are generally normally distributed (as Peter suggests), you'd assume the biggest moves are very profitable to fade (almost blindly).

That said I agree, & looking at how the other runners respond is certainly an interesting avenue (but a looong one! due to the almost limitless no. of combinations).

[arbitrage16]

These kind of stats are fine, but what allowances are made for opposition from other runners? If a runner "steaming 3%" (LOL!) is backed purely on that then of course it's not going to work because there are at least 5 other factors I can think of that determine the veracity of that move.

Really? If markets are generally normally distributed (as Peter suggests), you'd assume the biggest moves are very profitable to fade (almost blindly).

Don't understand this part, could you please clarify?

Limitless? I'd say fairly consistent patterns when one knows what to look for...

[ruthlessimon]

Don't understand this part, could you please clarify?

I'd define a contrarian trade as one that is based on mean-reversion. & the clue is in the name, "mean"-reversion - we expect the price to return to "the average".

Let's say for a certain market type the average move of the fav to the low is +2%. If the market is down +5%, it should, in theory, be profitable to lay that move (as, on average, the low is meant to be 2%).

Limitless? I'd say fairly consistent patterns when one knows what to look for...

Let's say the favourite has steamed 3%.

Does how the 2nd has moved during this period affect the trade (Possible moves of the 2nd runner +5%, +4%, +3%, +2%, +1%, 0%, -1%, -2%, -3% etc etc). You could then add the 3rd runner, 4th runner etc. Or you could change the move of the fav to 5% etc

But all the above are just hypotheses, & I know Peter would probably cringe at those methods detailed above. There's probably much easier & more effective ways of understanding the big moves & how to trade them

[arbitrage16]

So interesting to speak to someone who approaches the market in a completely different way to me.

From that explanation such an approach seems absolutely ripe for confirmation bias "I'll lay this as it's hit the 5% mark...oh, why isn't this reversing?"

Well, the market is a mechanism, and what is happening with the opposition is surely more important?

btw, is this all automated for you?