wiggle

Market Makers don't manipulate price— we're trapped by our own hedging requirements. When SPX drifts between long and short strikes, our systems start buying and selling futures in ways that create predictable paths. (short thread)

More Shoulder Blades Definition in 1 Month: Side-lying external Rotations twice a week, ideally with a weight. - Week 1: 3 sets of 10 reps/arm - Week 2: 4 sets of 10 reps/arm - Week 3: 3 sets of 20 reps/arm - Week 4: 4 sets of 20 reps/arm - Final Workout: 3 sets of max reps *The elbow cannot lift off the side of your body.

Its natural to feel like the more screen time, energy and effort you put into trading will net you higher success. Our minds are wired in that way. But there is alpha in taking the opposite approach. Lets say on average you take 50 trades a month and risk 1k per trade, with a general trade stringency of 7/10, if you were to have to score the average setup. What do you think would happen to your profitability if instead you took 5 trades per month, risked 10k per trade, and increased the criteria necessary to enter a trade to 9.5/10 – only taking the absolute cream of the crop set-ups? The answer is clear, your profitability would skyrocket. The logic is there, however it’s easier said than done. Issues arise in multiple areas when trying to make this shift - impatience is the first hurdle, we disregard setups that are say, 8/10 as they havent met our newly formed high standards and then one of them goes your way, frustration sets in and you end up taking the next 7/10 and decide to do away with the 9.5 standard, this oen of course fails and you're left in a worse position than before you embarked on this new journey. Discipline is therefore key, you must honor this notion and have a deep understanding of your psychology, and the new road you're choosing, before you do so. Once you tackle patience, and discipline, a new problem area will present itself - sitting through positions you've sized up into - you're now tackling trades with 10x the size, and therefore situations such as drawdown, which previously didn't affect you, now do. There are many obstacles in this shift - the above are just some examples, and they are not easy to tackle. We have to break the mould of what we are conditioned into thinking is productive, re-shift our psychology and approach, and manage ourselves and our emotions in the process. Somethings that helped me in this regard were: - Asking myself if I must be in this trade, is it a truly irresistible set-up I simply can’t ignore. - Scale up. Don't go straight for 10x less trades and 10x more size. Work towards it slowly, with that being your end goal. - Hide your PnL entirely. Your moving into a new regime where you are focusing on the process and not the money, this is where you want to be. Money will always come as an indirect benefit of playing the game better - focus on the game, not the profit. - Focus on pro-trend trading if the trend is clear. I.e. longs in bull markets, short in bear markets. - Writing out reasons not to be in the trade, as honestly as possible, before taking it. If you start seeing any solid arguments against the trade, even if minor – skip and wait for the next, that golden set-up will come, and you will have preserved your capital for another day. It's not an easy mould to break, so be realistic, be open and honest with yourself, but take steps in this direction and you'll see the benefits over the coming months and years. That i can guarantee.

The correlation of stocks to 10y yields has turned decidedly negative again over the past month w/higher inflation readings. Acc to Morgan Stanley, 4.35-4.40% on the 10y US Treasury yield is a key level for stock valuations, and this week it was breached decisively to the upside.

April is historically a +10% month on average since 2015 And you're short into neutral funding? (Chart below made June 2023)

Here is one more scenario that could happen and is better for the long term prospects of $BTC. Another blow off top would be really bad for this asset and a general rise much better.

i think the macro 5 up from inception on $WIF might be done here, all waves accounted for and a long drawn out abc probs underway before the next parabolic leg. looking to probs rebuy my bags down around $1-$2 in between the 618 and 0.78

vix spikes are *caused* by unexpected (or unlikely) bad stuff happening. they can be *exacerbated* by an excess of supply, or by sticky positioning. don’t confuse these things.

Another classic bull market behaviour. We see a strong impulse higher, price grinds upwards then takes out the entire grind up region as its sweep before forming a new leg up. Study these.

1 Base 2 Channel Up 3 Momentum I'm always on the lookout for phases 2 and 3 for momentum in trading - Avax and Dot come to mind. Riding trends efficiently not only maximizes gains but also ensures capital efficiency.

ChatGPT now helps you backtest Simple Trading Strategies. No more wasting 100's of hours building code from scratch for bad ideas. Here’s how to do it for free, in less than 10-minutes:

Some thoughts on trade management: When you take an outright position with a clearly defined stop and target, you’re simply saying: “I think the market will go from x (entry) to y (target) without hitting z (stop). I believe that’s the “easier” part of the process. The harder part is knowing how price is going to get there. Trade management compounds complexity because everytime you move a stop, add to a position, exit early, change your target or take a partial etc, you’re making another decision that builds on the first e.g. how likely is price to go where I planned, based on where it is right now? The problem arises when you get traders that have a 50/50 read of the market but rely on a decent payoff to make money, being forced to make more and more decisions. Alongside this issue, as the trade moves, ideas creep in that weren’t there at the outset. For example, you might take a trade based on market generated information like a breakout or a stop raid and reversal but then move the stop due to something else entirely like simply not wanting to see a winner turn into a loser e.g the infamous breakeven manoeuvre. In all my time examining traders that have clear stops and targets on their trades, I will tell you it’s rare to find someone that can, over a large sample size, make active management beat no management. People won’t like to accept this. They won’t think of testing it and they’ll often feel uncomfortable at the idea of doing it because most traders want to trade. They want to be hands on non stop. But it should be one of the very first things you test in my opinion.

I went through someone's journal in an extremely detailed manner. Here are all the findings and key notes to take from that review: 1. Fees They were constantly entering almost EVERY trade at market, tallying up to roughly $9,200 in fees. It is important to note that their PNL on this account was actually net negative at -$6,300. Fees alone are putting them in the red. Now I'm not suggesting that you can completely eliminate fees from your trading, but instead of entering and exiting at market, change to entering every trade at limit and only exiting at market. This alone would slash their market fees by 30% or more, instantly having a net positive effect on PNL. It is important to note, that changing to entering at limit has drawbacks but let's talk through it: No instant fill - meaning you have to be patient, fortunately enough you can check your MAE on winners only (how far a trade goes offside before hitting target), he was always getting pushed offside by at least 0.01%. So it makes sense to remain patient as you do not need an instant fill, already proven through his own statistics. 2. Sizing They were sizing up and down risk based on hunch/gut feeling, no graded setups, no metrics at all, and it showed. I personally believe that trading with different bet sizes is more profitable. However, most people (as in this case) have no system for differentiating their sizing. In this scenario, simply betting the same amount on all the trades they had taken would have significantly improved their PNL. What I have suggested moving forward: Bet the same on every setup, and over the next 100+ trades, we will separate each individual setup with a different grade, based on: - win rate - average R (avg win/avg loser) Betting more on metrically backed better setups. 3. Not maximising winning trades Almost 80% of the winning trades they took, they would close out extremely quickly in my opinion without any considerable weakness in that trade either. They are entering trades without thinking about any sort of targets or target areas. They were thinking about this stuff as an afterthought of the trading process, meaning whenever they saw even the slightest weakness, they would close the entire position due to lack of conviction or planning. From now on, before entering any trade, they should know where they would like to target for this trade, but also why they would want to target that level. The easiest way, in my opinion, to have conviction in a target being hit is through collecting data on high hit rate levels. For example, the chance today's poor high is revisited is X%, hence the long I'm taking I will look to target there. You do not have to have a statistically backed level for targets, but it makes life a lot easier. At the bare minimum, know where your FTA (first trouble area) is, such as a POC, S/R level, etc. Just plan before you execute. Then once you're in the trade, continue to monitor your evolving R. I will not deep dive into this; I suggest you go read/watch about this from @Trader_Dante 4. Blowout Days Day 1 +$420 Day 2 +$800 Day 3 + $519 Day 4 - $1100 What in the actual fuck. One single day blowing out days worth of profit. This was a fairly simple fix from my standpoint, implementing a day stop (-3r) especially since there was a pattern between winning and losing days: No winning day ever went past a draw down of -2r. So if all your winning days never go beyond the point of -2r, how can you allow days that are bad to end up being -6/7r. Implementing a day stop should immediately fix this. 5. Setups vs Conditions They were trading all different setups through all different conditions. The market could be trending and they are trading their reversal setup, or it could be rangebound and they're trading a more trend-based setup. Categorise your setups to different market conditions. If you're trading a trend-based setup in suboptimal conditions, you are just hindering its expectancy. This means you have to be able to identify market conditions (most people can't do this). Here's what I suggest: - Implement a checklist for just identifying market conditions: What is the daily timeframe doing? What is the market doing from the open, etc.? This means you will end up sitting on your hands a lot more as you're waiting for optimal conditions for each setup. But if it means you will be increasing expectancy per setup, why would you not do this? Problems don't solve themselves; you have to be able to identify, implement, and execute solutions. It's part of the business, being a professional problem-solver. Note - This journal has around 430+ trades from time of review

$SPY $SPX $QQQ $NVDA

$SPY $SPX $QQQ $NVDA

The cup ☕️ with handle base. One of the most important bases to study & identify 📖🧐. Remember the depth of base should be 12-35% however it can be DEEPER in a bear market. Many leaders emerge from these patterns coming out of a bear market.

Lots of you asked about how settlement of #bitcoin txns work in bitcoin ETFs, after the ETF buys (or sells) its BTC and how you can follow along. I'm going to tweet about $BITB specifically in this instance, so for BITB disclosures & prospectus see: bitbetf.com/welcome

The moment you become convinced this must be true, the bottom is probably in or near.

Smthg like this for $BTC

I took an image of a 1-month price graph of $NVDA and gave it to @AnthropicAI Claude Opus Vision Model to analyse. Here is the prompt I used: This is 1 month price graph. Perform technical analysis and tell me if this is a buy or sell signal. Also indicate your level of confidence in the analysis This is the analysis it gave after "seeing" the chart: -------------- Based on the technical analysis of the 1-month price graph for NVIDIA Corporation, this appears to be a sell signal with a relatively high level of confidence. Here are the key observations: The stock price has formed a clear bearish reversal pattern known as a "double top" around the $878 level. This pattern suggests that the uptrend has lost momentum and a trend reversal may be imminent. After forming the double top, the price has broken down below the support level around $840, confirming the bearish signal. The RSI has formed a bearish divergence, where the price made higher highs while the RSI made lower highs. This divergence indicates that the bullish momentum is weakening and a reversal is likely. The stock price has closed below the short-term moving average (not shown in the image), signaling a potential shift in the trend from bullish to bearish. The trading volume has been relatively high during the recent price decline, which is a negative sign as it suggests strong seller interest. Confidence level: High (8-9 out of 10) The confidence level in this sell signal is high because multiple bearish technical indicators are aligned, including the double top pattern, the breakdown below support, the bearish RSI divergence, and the close below the short-term moving average. Additionally, the high trading volume during the decline adds credibility to the bearish signal. However, it is important to remember that technical analysis should be used in conjunction with other forms of analysis, such as fundamental analysis and risk management techniques. Investors should always conduct their own due diligence and consider their individual risk tolerance before making any investment decisions.