Explain the mechanism. If I opened on one market maker, how can I now close on another market maker? - page 11
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
Here's a counter question for you. Does a limit bid move the price?
The question wasn't for me, but I'll answer it, may I? For example, a limit bid inside the spread = instant change in spread to the level of the limit bid -> practically = a trade proper at that stated price. And a limit order to somewhere in the betting market is just a limit order to somewhere in the betting market. The price is not moved by orders, but by trades. The orders are the wishes roughly. The deals are fulfillment of these wishes. There are no deals and no price changes. It goes like this.
Then explain how the DC will earn in case of successful trading of its clients? Are you saying that the spread, commissions can cover it all? Or they are counting only on the loss of securities? That's how casinos work. The only way to be guaranteed to be in the black with all the other nuances is to enter the market with an aggregate (maybe partial) position.
Yes, in general they are counting on losing deposits. Need I remind you of the success statistics? In real money (not in percentages) it's even scarier. Successful traders may hedge and may not (because success is temporary and it all depends on the amounts).
What difference does it make where a market maker works in the stock market or the over-the-counter market. Their functions are the same. You realise the main thing, your trades are not going to the market.
You also understand the main thing - you should absolutely not care whether your trades go to the market or not. You should care if you get your earnings on your first demand. How they do it is their job. You do yours.
Yes, in general they are counting on depot draining. Need I remind you of the success statistics? In real money (not in percentages) it's even scarier. Successful traders may or may not hedge (because success is temporary and depends on the amount).
You, too, must understand the main thing - you should absolutely not care whether your trades go into the market or not. You should care whether you get your earnings on your first demand. How they do it is their job. You do yours.
So you don't explain it to me, you explain it to the author of this thread. I haven't traded on forex for a long time, only the stock market. Read the very beginning, that's what started all this discussion. And in the end we got to a discussion about how market makers work and how they influence quotes.
...Large clients are more literate in this business, that's why they are large, they do less stupid things...
This is a major semantic error in your statement, which is why the rest does not fit together. These things do not correlate from the word go.
This is a major semantic error in your statement, which is why the rest does not fit together. These things do not correlate from the word go.
PAMM accounts are exactly my point of view. On average, the relative drawdown is inversely proportional to the amount of money in management. These are obvious things. Even, one could say, is the law of life: smarter people, on average, are more adjusted to life (higher income, less getting into trouble, etc.). Why this is not obvious to you remains a mystery :) .
Perhaps because I know little about relatively honest ways to draw you any beauty of a PAMM account. And I know people. They don't change from the amount of money they have. They very rarely change at all. But you are certainly entitled to your point of view.
Perhaps because I know little about relatively honest ways to draw you any beauty of a PAMM account. And I know people. They don't change from the amount of money they have. They very rarely change at all. But you are certainly entitled to your point of view.
PAMM accounts are exactly my point of view. On average, the relative drawdown is inversely proportional to the size of funds under management. These things are obvious. It's even the law of life: smarter people are, on average, better adjusted to life (higher income, less trouble, etc.). Why this is not obvious to you remains a mystery :) .
the leaders all have 70-80% drawdowns )
and smart money doesn't go into pams)