SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Systems, Strategies and Resources for Trading Futures -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alan Smithee who wrote (6578)10/16/1998 10:30:00 AM
From: Stoctrash  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 44573
 
XAU basing nicely off the 200Dma.
FED thing should keep the DXY falling...again the 92 level is a key support IMO.
(actually 92.26 ...but lets not get picky!!)



To: Alan Smithee who wrote (6578)10/16/1998 11:29:00 AM
From: Tom Trader  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 44573
 
DSG, I said more or less the same thing in the next paragraph

I think that the individual was probably affected by an element of irrational exuberance -- and probably did not mean to slander Don.

I was more bothered by the fact that he chose to post the same thing on several threads. But he had the grace to apologize and I appreciate that gesture.

Re Pat--probably just as well that he was away--it was one of those days when one could have gone short and it would have been a very costly mistake. I don't usually use stops when I day trade since I am watching it closely--but I know that if I had been short at the 1024 level where it was trading at when the news came out, by the time I contacted my broker and placed a market order, I'd have ended up being out of the short at around 1060+, if I was lucky -- and given the number of contracts that I day trade, it would have been a very expensive trade--since it would have amounted to a loss of at least $8k per contract.

Basically, yesterday's action was an aberration -- but for anyone contemplating futures trading -- it does spell out the inherent risks in a way that no amount of writing about it can do.