Jump to content

gaz5

Gold Members
  • Posts

    2,083
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

gaz5 last won the day on March 3 2020

gaz5 had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,144 Excellent

Profile Information

  • My Team
    Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

6,120 profile views
  1. I've been answering points about trading and market operations. The post you have quoted was in response to the bold claim that an all time market high was "fake". Local highs (that this would be for an investment outlook) are irrelevant for investment outlook, so the question was a trading one. You can't have a pop at someone, well not to be taken seriously, for answering a question about short term trading outlooks by saying "that's not investing". I know it's not, neither was the question being answered. If you can't separate the two in your mind and realise I'm talking about one and not the other based on the conversation, I can't help you. Your argument here is basically "those are not oranges and you're an idiot for saying they are" when the entire time I've been talking about apples. I've already told you, several times, my long term investments are DCA monthly in ETF's through my ISA and the time outlook for those is such I don't need to worry about them. My trading account is separate to my overall portfolio and (after tax) what I essentially fund most of my £20k annual allowance from. I'm sure none of those other traders care what you think of them as a person any more than I do. [emoji846] That's an odd comment, to say the least. Not that I care what type of person anyone thinks I am outside of those closest to me, I'm not a social butterfly. I do find it funny though that you've assigned me a label that I know nothing about "investing" or what is represents. That's a chortle. I've been an investor for 20 years, worked in financial services (currently an investment bank) for my entire adult life and I've done rather well out of the long term investing. Trading is a more recent thing for me, having never had the time previously. I've only been doing it about 2 years, 18 months seriously, having found 40 hours in my week when I gave up being involved in football.
  2. It 100% is. But feel free to explain why it's not true that markets exist to allow large institutions to grab liquidity from other institutions or smaller retail traders, rather than just say "trust me". Saying something is so, offering zero detail behind it, is not a valid argument in any context. Given I've gone into great detail to explain how and why it is, that's the least you can do. So go ahead, let's debate the finer details of how and why markets operate, I'm game.....
  3. Said it before, there's a player in Scott Wright. Excellent finish and been Rangers best player other than Shirley since coming on
  4. The most entertaining thing about this game so far has been Michael Stewart trying to tell McCoist how to be a goalscorer. [emoji1787]
  5. I've seen a few projects attempting similar things (a lot of the fan token projects have similar ideas). It's one of the ideas for NFT's that longer term (once the solutions mature sufficiently) I could actually see some merit in: unique ticketing for events that can't be counterfeit or scalped. I could see why that would be an improvement on current ticketing systems, but if it did find adoption it'll probably take a decade or more, at least. There are (a huge minority) of projects that do offer at least some kind of utility like this, but I agree with you. They're essentially all theoretical solutions to problems people didn't really know (or still don't) they had and outside of the crypto sphere itself there's only a few companies dipping their toe in the water (like BMW I mentioned above using VeChain for supply chain/asset management). And a lot of them are Blockchain based solutions that dont actually add any value over and above the same non Blockchain version so make little sense. It's the main reason I never argue that crypto is anything other than a speculative market, even if a very small number of the projects in it have some potential longer term merit.
  6. [emoji1787][emoji1787] I have no answer to points raised, again, so better deflect as usual It's fun (and fairly easy) running rings round you, what can I say.
  7. It's funny watching you post stuff like this, when everyone knows you're the biggest troll on P&B whose entire MO is to deliberately misrepresent peoples views. Couldn't mark your brass neck with a blowtorch. [emoji1787]. But you'll forgive me or anyone else in here not taking advice on trading, on any market, from a guy who made an arse of himself the other day when he made it clear he didn't even know where the ticker was on a stock chart. Kinda 101 shit that. [emoji1787] You do make me laugh with your "putting food on the table" rhetoric though, another one of your straw men, trying to paint someone who demonstrably knows more than you on this topic as some sort of degenerate who is going to lose it all for no other reason than a. you can't read to know why that won't happen and b. you have no intelligent answer to the actual content of anything they post. You clearly suffer from rage filled insecurity at even the thought that someone, anyone, could conceivably know more than you about a specific topic based on actual experience. I actually pity you a little. "I can't do it so clearly no one can and I won't even listen or respond to any actual content they post because it's lies, must be because I can't do it". But if that's what you need to tell yourself to make yourself feel better, you carry on old chap. Happy to take it on the chin to keep you level. My contribution to care in the community. [emoji106] Right, just closed my last trade of the week so off to do my weekly cap gains taxes. [emoji6]
  8. If you're talking about me, for the nine millionth time IM NOT A CRYPTO MAXI, I'M A MARKETS GUY WHO HAPPENS TO ALSO TRADE CRYPTO. Trade being the operative word. I hold very, very little for longer than a day. I'm answering market questions, from people who think markets operate differently because it's an asset class they don't like. It's fine not to like it, I just said to ICTChris that 95% of Crypto is complete trash. I don't like a lot of it either.
  9. OK, fair enough. Full disclosure, I don't really hold for long term in Crypto (my long term portfolio is all in equities), but I do hold a couple of small positions in projects that I think have real world utility. They aren't the most popular projects in the world, for many reasons, but I can use them to give you a couple of examples: VeChain: Technically, they are a BaaS (Blockchain as a Service) provider, which allows them to help large enterprises build their solutions on Blockchain. They have various offerings in supply chain management that I think is where their utility is. For example, they're now partnered with BMW where details of every car are stored on blockchain and then managed there throughout the life of the vehicle (from maintenance, to parts, to shipping, to service records etc.) so none of it can be faked. They've provided other solutions (like in Cyprus they managed the Covid Vaccine rollout from factory to patient using VeChain blockchain). XRP: On Demand Liquidity / Liquidity Hub. My background is in Financial Services and I've dealt with Swift as a result for years. Also the crazy Nostro/Vostro setup where banks have huge amounts of liquidity sitting around payment corridors just in case it needs to be used to settle. XRP and ODL takes away that Nostro/Vostro requirement by allowing you to send payment that settles in seconds, anywhere in the world (even the places that don't have banks with established payment corridors), for pennies. There are loads of other benefits of XRP and the XPR Ledger over Swift (which is just a messaging system), but dont want to bore you. There's two examples. Quant would be another one to look into. There are over 11,000 projects in Crypto these days and probably 10,800 of those are complete trash. Utter nonsense that provides no benefit or solves any real world problem and they really all should die (hopefully many will when BTC goes to 20k or lower). But at the same time there are at least a few interesting projects, with real world value propositions, despite the naysayers and their "INTANGIBLE!!!!!" outlook.
  10. Do you really want to know or are you just baiting like everyone else?
  11. I can see your question was disingenuous, you weren't actually interested in the answer, not that you can in any way dispute it. Taking liquidity from retail is the entire point of ALL markets. ALL markets are speculative. Honestly, I really don't get what you guys don't understand about this. The underlying asset itself is completely irrelevant. I've shown examples of this multiple times. I couldn't give a flying f*ck if its Bitcoin or, as above, the S&P futures, or Chevron, or GBPUSD. Markets are markets. Detach your hatred for Crypto from how markets operate, you might actually learn something.
  12. Sure. Your initial comment was: Firstly, you seem to be confusing yourself by saying it was both "Fake" and "Achieved", which in itself is an oxymoron. But I know what you were trying to say. From a technical perspective: "Spoof" orders can only be Limit orders (orders that are placed on the order book waiting for price to reach a particular level that entice buyers/sellers in but are then cancelled) Limit orders are "Market Maker" orders, in that those who place them are not taking instantly from the market, they are "making" the market Limit orders are "Passive" and sit on the on the BID side of the BID/ASK In order for price to move upwards, you need aggressive buyers (buyers who wont wait and want their order to fill now at any price, they will just smash the "Market buy" button) Market orders are "Market Taker" orders They sit on the ASK side of the BID/ASK So, in summary, passive Limit buy orders don't move a market, whether they are executed or not, because they're on the wrong side of the BID/ASK. They can't "achieve" any sort of high, "fake" in your view or otherwise, their only intent is to entice unaware retail liquidity into the ASK. Order block manipulation happens in EVERY market, not just Crypto. You see block orders added by Algo's all the time and then disappear before they get filled, it's how HFT bots essentially work. Order Block manipulation is only illegal in traditional markets if you have multiple smaller orders hidden on the other side of the book and you're baiting other people to push the price up (or down) in order to fill your real positions. In this instance, you'd have buy blocks on the book to entice retail to FOMO in when they see the orders only for you to get a higher fill on your short orders on the other side of the spread. You're essentially baiting them to sell to you for a better price. This is very easy to do playing both sides in Crypto because there's no regulation, agreed, but it in no way makes the high "Fake". Price still went there, its just a liquidity grab. Furthermore, the exact same tactic is used in traditional markets (liquidity grab), they just don't use orders on both sides of the book at the same time to do it, because this is barred. But the Algo's have other ways to achieve the same outcome (and I can show you charts from both Forex and Equities that show you it in action if you want, because this is the exact scenario I trade in all markets - I'll drop one in below from yesterday). * Essentially they will create price action during the day that entices retail into a direction and creates a liquidity pool using either buy or sell stops as their grab. In a long scenario, they will, for example, create a daily high then a daily low (setting the range), then bring price slowly up to that daily high again without breaching it, creating a "Double Top", which retail will jump on to short. They place their stop losses above the first high within a 10 to 20 pip range and price pulls away and they think they're golden. This is just one example (and why drawing patterns on a chart is a nonsense that gets retail rekt). Then later in the day the Algo, having built long positions beneath equilibrium of the range, will push price up to take trailing stops out and use them as fuel to take all that buy side liquidity in the zone they created above. So: Is spoof trading/order blocking rife in Crypto: Yes Does it create "Fake" highs: No, the highs absolutely happen Does it only create tops and bottoms: No, its used (along with other techniques) on every high and low on every timeframe, the purpose is to take liquidity from retail, same as it is on every market Is it overly important: No (less than 15% of the volume in Crypto, like Forex and Equities, is retail traders, the rest is institutional, its just markets) Does this price manipulation to grab retail liquidity happen in every market: Yes Is price manipulation illegal: No (though spoof trading as a method specifically is in traditionals). I've added an example from yesterday (as I happened to trade this yesterday on the S&P Mini Futures). Have annotated it with the manipulation just to show how its done. This happens over and over and over and over again across markets. Its all done by bots. * Note to add that its hugely unusual for an Institution to use Limit orders in the first place to move price aggressively. They use Market order for that as it takes a tiny fraction of the capital to just start price going their way. Generally limit orders are used to build positions slowly and quietly, rather than explosively off a high. You generally find them more often at midpoints of trending moves, during a re-accumulation (or re-distribution for shorts).
  13. "Crypto Bad". Is what it is, those with a closed mind wont have that mind changed. It's just a shame that their influence will have others believing some of the nonsense. TBH it does their valid concerns, of which their are actually many, no favours. Just as something of an aside on the LUNA debacle: A top 10 Crypto Market asset with a market cap of around $50 Billion dropped to essentially zero in a day due to a technical flaw in the project that left them open to a death spiral attack. Bitcoin dropped about 30% (because that death spiral involved the LUNA algorithm selling BTC, their asset that backed the $ peg, to try to maintain the peg) in a spell where traditional markets are already going down on inflation prints, the rest of the market crashed between 30%-50% to account for it, but its still going, no outside contamination, no bailouts, nothing else required. In 2008 Lehman had a market cap of $60 Billion and its demise over a day or two on the cross contamination of a flaw in sub prime lending practice led to the near collapse of the entire financial system, had Governments around the world bailing out their banking competitors at the cost of the public in order to avoid Armageddon and led to a huge selloff in traditional markets. Which asset class held up better and impacted both those involved but, more importantly, those not involved more? I dont like Bitcoin, personally. I dont think it (or any other Crypto) will EVER be a currency, for many, many reasons. And the BoE thinks the same (I was at their Digital Pound Foundation event talking about CBDC's and integration with Blockchain). But in terms of a test of the network, Bitcoin held up better than the traditional financial network did during their respective "events" with similar sums from a similar sized player wiped in a short space of time.
  14. [emoji1787] Tell us you don't know how markets work without telling us you don't know how markets work. This made me near shit laughing. [emoji1787]
  15. Thought he was the best player on the park, either side, personally. He'll not be with you for long, has EPL centre back written all over him with maybe another year. But TBH I thought only he, Lundstrum, Wright and Davis turned up for Rangers. The rest were well below previous levels. They were the same, only a handful of them turned up. Was a pretty poor game I thought. Rangers bossed extra time and only a good save took it to pens. But they were better over the 90. Rangers scored from their only real chance from a mistake. They could have had a few in the 90.
×
×
  • Create New...