|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Amen.
-----Original Message-----
From: Felix TY [mailto:felixty@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 1998 12:10 AM
To: bmassey@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: List, Omega
Subject: Re: Globex S&P and emini
But, remember, these games does not hurt or affect the position players
(some of
them just watch the whole day, execute their entries at the close), mostly
the
daytraders or the ones we called "punters" who lose and the naughty small
borkerages trading account
trying to scalp, my conclusion is daytrading will become extremely hard and
not
worth
it anymore. But still the big bad boys can still be burned, it there's an
insider lurking
that day. All is fair in love and war.
In outcry, the stops of the public (whether daytraders or position players
with
their stop
orders) are in the hands of the floor not at the hands of the indivudual
players. So there
is a " little" hole in there for discretion by the floortraders. In stocks,
slippage is not really
too big a deal for position investors as compared to the leveraged futures,
the
pain is
a lot different.
And finally, in electronic trading, everyone who loses money cannot blames
anyone
else anymore, and will be force to look at the mirror where they will
finally
understand
and accept what (system?) or who is wrong. The true reality. And move
forward to
adjust themselves or their system. This should help accelerate learning
curves
better
in time and cheaper (monetary) too! At worst is, we have remove a factor of
those
physically outside a major reason for losing.
Yes, electronic tradng is still having growing pains. Hmmm..... Let's take
a
look again
at the more efficient German Dax system, Huh?
Brian Massey wrote:
> And you thought future pit locals ala the S+P were out to manipulate the
> market and screw the paper. Sounds as if there's just as much if not more
> manipulation in the stocks than futures. Guess again if you think
electronic
> trading is going to bring equitability for all participants. There will
> always be those who have an unfair advantage. Electronic trading makes it
> even eaiser to cheat because it's done in private with way less
> accountability.
>
> Markets are markets and people are people. You can't escape.
>
> Just figure out in what position the pain doesn't hurt as much and it
won't
> be so bad. However, you still got to take it.
>
> Brian.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix TY [mailto:felixty@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, August 29, 1998 11:05 PM
> To: Gerrit.Jacobsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Globex S&P and emini
>
> Was a broker who traded at our electronic exchange, the following are
really
> true,
> I think they are really important for electronic newbies.
>
> Gerrit Jacobsen wrote:
>
> > Even on systems where you can see the whole order book you cannot
> effectively
> > compete because the traders either do not give all information into the
> system
> > or they give wrong information into the system.Either way no one wants
to
> show
> > his hand - who would ?
> >
>
> > Yes, unless they wanted you to ( for their own purposes)
>
> > But even then he will try to have some private words with large
traders.
>
> Yes , this is also practice, so that nobody gets in the way when they
do
> their
> thing.or there's going to be big problerm for them from even bigger boys
who
> are
> not
> participants.
>
> > There is no way to find this out while this is happening.
>
> Yes, it has to be planned by two or three private parties acting and
> synchronizing andsynchronizing their postings.
>
> > Of course I do not want to generalize and I believe that some markets
> > like the DTB/Xetra are already pretty efficient but the methods stay
> > the same. It is well known that the traders put fake orders into the
> > market to cap or support positions. When the market gets there they
> > just pull the order.
>
> Our local term for this is "loading"., fake massive buying posted, then
> when
> thepublic saw this , the public will hit the sellers again and again , who
> myteriously wouldn't go away,or has an almost unlimited supply, after
these
> sellers have their fill, they pull out the massive buying,
>
> next step then dump down on the next two levels of buyers, making the
first
> buyers who buy up the ask threw up their positions creating a selling down
> frenzy. by the longs, where
> the conspirators buy back if they oversold (short) later or sometimes they
> don't,
> that is
> if they have a really big sell order that day.. So their really objective
is
> to
> sell to the suckers at the ask price. Its not as dangerous as you think,
> they
> have other terminals, who is on standby, to pull out those fake buys at
the
> press
> of a key. (the professionals do it this way) These are actual practices,
> having
> seen them first hand again and again.
>
> > Whatever system is out there. It is not in the interest of others to cut
> you in
> > on the deal.
>
> Yes, again, your role (and the public) is only to provide their daily
bread
> and
> butter.These are some of the methods developed and practiced by
electronic
> market traders in our market, the last two years. So far nobody has
> complained,
> because nothing is done illegally. The only risk is if some of the really
> big
> guys, who are not participantsof theirs suddenly hit these conspirators
down
> on
> three fluctuations, then they are , in deep shit too! But this happens
less
> than
> 5 percent of the time. Knew one trader,( even a brokerage!!, too bad an
> insider
> really dump shares to them ), who tried to do this as an individual, he
> became
> bankrupt.
>
> Doing this practice recquires big big balls too. Not for everyone, even
with
> big
> capital.
>
> New electronic traders will see these happening in their markets too, so
be
> careful and
> remain faithful to your methologies and stop losses.
>
> In electronic trading one should always play chicken, and build up your
> positions, as they move your way or you will become mince meat by the
pros.
> This
> is just one of the
> techniques being done in electronic trading ,there are many more, and more
> being
> developed.
>
> >
>
> >
> >
|