Is the glass half full or half empty - how do you analyse the glass and apply it in trading? - page 7
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
About conspiracy and hunting. If an instrument is heavily dependent on something, it is correspondingly little susceptible to manipulation. Otherwise it would be handy for arbitrage. It's pretty hard to move the price where you want it to go, even by 1 tick. For example, the Euro futures. There the MM pushes and holds the market as it needs to. This is a personal observation, not necessarily the truth. On instruments that stand alone, with low liquidity you may be hunted.
I disagree, pushing through the glass by 10 points is quite realistic - from practice.
I don't agree, it's quite realistic to sell the glass by 10 pips - from practice.
You can sell it when it coincides with MM's plans (and not only). The screenshot is a tick chart of the Euro futures
You will be able to sell it when it coincides with MM's plans (and not only). The screenshot is a tick chart of the Euro futures
It is clear that there is always a corridor, it is just that there are ways to move.
It is clear that there is always a corridor, it is just that there are ways to move.
If you and MM are not going your way, then this corridor is not for you.
If MM is not your way, then this corridor is not for you.
Any ideas on how to see the big money path outlined in the glass?
Any ideas on how to see the intended path of big money in the cup?
Speaking of MM's work, I think he's shunning the big moves. That's another reap).
Any ideas on how to see the intended path of big money in the glass?
We need to identify where there is a buyer or seller imbalance. MM, in my opinion, goes against this imbalance.
But this statement does not apply to a strong trending move.
We need to identify where there is a buyer or seller imbalance. MM, in my opinion, goes against this imbalance.
But this statement does not apply to a strong trend movement.
Exactly, big movements are more to the market maker's detriment. As for the imbalance, there are levels where both buying and selling are going on. Perhaps they should be used as a reference. The MM has a task not to go against anyone, but to provide liquidity and at the same time to remain in the plus. There are always buyers and sellers and therefore one can adjust the market to oneself. I'm not talking about me here, but about MM. Imagine there are two opposing streams in this river with an MM in the middle. Shifting towards one of the streams and restraining it MM is waiting for the moment when the adjacent stream can easily shift it in the opposite direction. Suppose there are sales on one level together with purchases. The sales are in the majority. The market is weakening at the top and low-volume buying allows the price to rise by 1-2 ticks. Above the incoming purchases satisfy the MM limiters. If the sales suddenly continue at this level, the price will probably go back down, say, by 1 tick. Perhaps this provokes purchases, allowing the MM to close. Everything can be thought out in the market, except the incoming market, it is almost unpredictable. The market maker can use the speed advantage to adjust to the incoming market and manipulate it to a small extent. This is all speculation and not necessarily the case.