alexmr2 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 5:07 pm
hgodden wrote: ↑Tue Jun 21, 2016 6:46 am
The manipulation is of people, traders. Building bots that dominate most of the unmatched money on several prices and then smashing through traders orders that arent its own and trying to force them to close for a loss. Creating false impressions in the market to lure traders in and then ramping the other way. Deeply studying trader's behaviours to take advantage of them. Pushing against their orders making it as difficult as possible for them to close.
...
The irony is that since PC3 came in it is much easier for an individual with lots of money and know how to dominate much of the markets and other participants here, as it has created a situation where 'they' don't have to hedge all their bets (while normal traders do) as this just creates bumpy P and L's for them over several accounts which will then increase their commissions to the point where they can avoid paying PC.
So in practical terms (especially late on in the markets where most of the real money is being bet) if you put an order in on the wrong runner and the 'market' smashes through you (or rather the person responsible smashes through you) then you can either close for a loss (and the bigger the stake the further away the price will be pushed, although this is by no means limited to large stakes, even small ones are pushed against) then as a trader you can either hedge for a loss (what we're supposed to do right?
) or let the bet stand, whereas on the other side the manipulators bot is happy either way, either it has forced your order into hedging against it for an instant profit for itself or, if you dont hedge, then it doesnt care as the bet will just form part of its market making and such bets will even out over time generating more commission for it.
Sorry to quote an old post but I found this interesting and have a question about some of the mentions of holding other traders in losing positions if anyone would be able to answer it?
Would a bot (or manual trader for that matter) actually be able to see someone's position in the market, or would it purely based on making an assumption from the pattern and historical human behaviour whether or not the movements were artificially influenced by the one looking to manipulate or not?
Only Bill Gates can do that (the fictitious character, not the former owner and CEO of Microsoft).
If the favourite for the Derby is 3.0, everybody's seen it win the Guineas and understands why it's a 3.0 chance, and then some idiot takes it down to 2.7 with a £250K back bet, nobody's going to think somebody knows something about a horse in the spotlight that the rest of us don't and think it's heading down to odds-on. The money will be taken and it bounces back.
Basically, if you put a trade in the market and the market goes against you, whether it was a bad trade (which isn't necessarily the case) or not, YOU made a decision to open a trade in a position that ultimately led to a losing trade.
It's all in the psychology of trading. Some people get frustrated and blame the trader who took his bet for the loss, some blame the market, some blame life, some even blame Bill Gates.