searching for holy-grail.. is this theory true?

[Shakone]

Why would traders want to do that when supply/demand has got fook all to do with prices moving up n down?? I'm confused.

Peter

Because most traders are loosers

 

[rsh01]

Why would traders want to do that when supply/demand has got fook all to do with prices moving up n down?? I'm confused.

Peter

thats what got me. i'm gonna sue the b0llox off of eurex for libel.

edit: i will be using a selection of posts from this thread as evidence against them.

 

[counter_violent]

 

[rsh01]

nice rod

 

[Triggerfish]

OK, so hopefully wer'e all agreed now that supply/demand has got fook all to do with prices moving up n down.

Prices are speculated up and down by varying degrees of extension until they find equilibrium points, then the speculation cycle starts again.

Prices moving up/down depends on the supply/demand of a particular instrument at that temporary moment in time. That temporary moment in time, the price is in a state of equilibrium.....hence we have a price.

The deeper question is what lies beyond this? and the true meaning of what the true intent is and how it is achieved? and by who? and why? and how?

 

[rsh01]

Prices moving up/down depends on the supply/demand of a particular instrument at that temporary moment in time. That temporary moment in time, the price is in a state of equilibrium.....hence we have a price.

The deeper question is what lies beyond this? and the true meaning of what the true intent is and how it is achieved? and by who? and why? and how?

is a table a table?

 

[Vasco da Banana]

If in doubt, remember what Mike Slapabooby said:

PRICE BEHAVIOUR IS THE BEHAVIOUR OF PRICE.

 

[rsh01]

hi CV - not sure if your brilliant jpeg posting is aimed at me, but on the v surreal off chance it is, then....

....wow, thks man, i bless you.......i feel ashamed & i fully repent. i spent all of seconds on this thread, those ingenious 'fishermen' much longer.

tf evolution theory doesnt transpose to forums.

 

[cablemonster]

nice rod

that's not a rod

 

[wallstreetwarrior87]

is a table a table?

Only if it has legs, if not, its just a table top

 

[wallstreetwarrior87]

that's not a rod

Lets not start comparing our rods! Saturday night, who knows where it will end?

It might lead back to bl**dy liquidity again:cheesy:

 

[rsh01]

that's not a rod

ha.

my bad, rodneys a mate, missed the comma....

"nice, rod".

gd fishing.

 

[rsh01]

Lets not start comparing our rods! Saturday night, who knows where it will end?

It might lead back to bl**dy liquidity again:cheesy:

ha you have a dark mind wsw - rods & liquids & sat nights, hmmm.

The Fast Show - Comptetitive Dad -10- Fishing - YouTube

 

[robster970]

The aggregate consumption of the available liquidity on both sides of the market.

I'm off now...

 

[Shakone]

The aggregate consumption of the available liquidity on both sides of the market.

I'm off now...

What is liquidity if it's not available?

 

[robster970]

What is liquidity if it's not available?

You have an illiquid security.

Somebody will always come in to buy or sell at what they perceive as 'value'. The difference between the bid and ask at which these people turn up determines the spread. Value will also be determined by the nature of the participant. As different participants use markets for different reasons perceived value will vary.

To be fair, I haven't read the thread - TLDR.

 

[lurkerlurker]

You need yourself a cider-based HFT.

UK and US regulators fine trader £3m for manipulation of oil market - Telegraph

The final paragraph contains the first piece of useful information:

at least “one significant market participant” stopped trading on the Intercontinental Exchange...as a direct result of the Mr Coscia’s market manipulation.

So a fast firm picked off a slower but better connected firm and is paying the price? Its all politics and pull. There is no objective definition of this so called manipulation: just another set of laws selectively enforced against those who have inconvenienced the powers that be, or at random to justify the role of the regulator. Not the "rule of law" as I once understood it to mean.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws...just pass the kind of laws that can neither be enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt.

Funny how its market manipulation when a well connected firm gets picked off for pennies, but when a large name deliberately sells off the entire European interest rate complex to take out the locals who have over-committed size in order to compete in pro rata matching, the latter who are wiped out by the manipulation aren't entitled to be made whole as they are "eligible counterparties" and should accept the risks of quoting. But rather schizophrenically, the state considers the wrongful manipulation severe enough to justify confiscating the proceeds, but not enough to allow the victims any recompense. These regulatory fines are a bribe by any other name. Else why not order the counterparties compensated in order to disgorge the profits? Why is the state being paid?

Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.

WSW: coming pretty close to giving the answers rather than nudges towards the right questions! Now, the task for readers is to work out how to accurately measure or approximate the state of the market according to the concepts you have shared.

 

[DionysusToast]

Still going on, eh?

The issue here, is the "supply and demand" guys have that as their catch all for retrospective analysis, yet nothing deeper than that.

"Price went up there, so demand must have been greater than supply" - so then what? If we get back there demand will STILL be greater than supply? Is that it? Is that all your explanation of market moves gives you?

The markets (unless you had not noticed) are auctions. In real world auctions, an auction will soften tart off at a low price, yet there is no demand. Then someone makes a bid and the auction starts and higher prices generate more buying, often to extremes way past any price that could be deemed sensible for the item on sale. In fact, some of the bids are not bids at all, just made up by the guy running the auction.

We see high prices generate more demand for the item. Financial markets are similar but different, we still get the same 'bubble' dynamics but it is not because people demand the item on sale but simply because they think the price will rise and they can offload on someone else later.

This speculative model is very simple and way ahead of the "supply and demand" catch-all that has been described here. Once you understand the behavior that drives people, you then can understand

- how they will act when price moves their way
- how they wil act when price moves against and where their pain point is
- that everybody that got into a speculative long trade is now a seller
- that everybody that got into a speculative long trade is one less future long to get into the market

As for finite supply (stocks) and infinite supply (markets) - well even someone that believes in supply and demand should be able to explain how 2 distinct market types would act differently.

Alas no, no more fruit is on the tree of "supply and demand" - it is the answer, the whole answer, it provides no additional clues, yields no wisdom on the probability of futures price moves.

It just is.

As the world once was flat.

 

[Joules MM1]

i think the supply/demand equation (because linearly, that's all it is, an equation) simply provides a hint....the rest is where (from my pov) where art kicks in....

i see traders who look back at volume as an activity/evidence that price will (re)discover activity in any given area then it still requires anecdotal thinking, i mean, still requires concepts of intent and this idea is unavoidable as much as it is an advantage......i think this true of all auctions.....

to that extent, saying that any of the above approaches are wrong or implying they are wrong is wrong in itself, afterall, the difference is a return on risk...if a trader wants to be limited to a specific set of rules without asking any further of what is driving price then that's their lot.....logic of price is not the same as telling the story of what's to come, while there may appear to be less risk in the logic of price there is certainly less advantage in not propositioning who is in the game and attempting to 'frame' the game for other auction participants....

some traders look at supply/demand side in set ways and they can only grow their ideas and by asking wider questions on context and intent....

this conversation isnt a battle of universal correctness (youre wrong/i'm right kinda thing) rather, correct focus in terms of understanding the game in its past setting, present setting, proposed setting..... allowing the trader to see price in difference levels, on different plains.....

 

[Joules MM1]

perhaps a direct approach might assist in the convo....perhaps someone could refer to this chart and open a dialogue on the pitfalls/upside of how supply/demand equation worked for them or, better still, how would S/D side assist in proposing the current price activity...if someone wants to put up a diff chart, say, of the es or any instrument, a real dialogue can kick off.....