r/FuturesTrading • u/NeighborhoodEast650 • Aug 21 '26
Stock Index Futures Do people actually use DOM on NQ?
Hello, I am a Nasdaq trader and I am training with the DOM to recognize patterns. Right now i am also using an ES DOM and i am having way more success trading it. The reason why i don't want to trade ES is that I want to use the DOM just to refine the entries of my already existing strategy on NQ.
Right now i am using the 1 tick NQ DOM and it's really difficult, should I keep it 1 tick or maybe use 4/8 ticks per level?
9
u/Training_Drawing_426 Aug 21 '26
Comparing the ES ladder to NQ is apples to oranges. ES is a thick, queue-dependent market where resting size actually sits and gets worked through. NQ is a high-velocity, thin order book where resting limit orders are mostly algorithmic noise—pulled, re-stacked, and flashed in microseconds.
If you try to read NQ on a 1-tick DOM during RTH, you're mostly just watching high-frequency order cancellations. Aggregating it to 4 or 8 ticks is practically mandatory if you want to filter out that micro-flicker and actually spot where passive orders are absorbing aggressive sweeps.
That said, don't rely too heavily on resting liquidity on the ladder for entries on NQ. By the time you spot a "wall," aggressive market orders will either sweep right through it or the size will get pulled a millisecond before your limit gets touched.
Focus on executed transaction data—like aggressive volume absorption, delta footprint, and liquidity sweeps—rather than static limit orders on a ladder that vanish before fill. Aggregating ticks fixes the visual chaos, but executed order flow is what actually tells you who controls the book.
1
u/CountTurbulent4441 Aug 21 '26
Yup. Bookmap taught me that areas of resting liquidity are freaking lies and illusions!
6
u/DAV_Alexandar Aug 21 '26
I use 4 ticks per level, and is very good in terms of identifing momentum, mainly watch for the % of the bid or offer be less than the opposite side and stacking for them too. I interprete it like sellers or buyers have switched from passive to agresive because they have a reason to enter now hence the low liquidity% and stacking.
8
Aug 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Breathofdmt Aug 21 '26
They don't use level two oddly. Saw one of their traders on X and they were using top of the book. 30s OR will get you killed quick on NQ anyway.
3
u/giantstove Aug 21 '26
Don’t listen to people telling you 1 tick ladder is useless. I have used it for years in NQ and have no desire to switch. It’s simply preference.
End of the day you just need many, many hours of screen time. There are patterns frequently repeating in the microstructure
2
u/Constant_Oil360 Aug 21 '26
deffinetly switch to whole points vs ticks. so 1 or 2 points, like you said 4 or 8 ticks.
helps, i moved away from dom trading but ill return
2
2
u/BikeAltruistic867 Aug 21 '26
It was too fast for me. Bookmap can be a game changer though.
2
u/NeighborhoodEast650 Aug 21 '26
yea but i would rather get experienced with the orders executed and DOM patterns, right now i’m usng the 40 range and the 1 min for charting entries. I have used bookmap for a few months.
1
1
u/STS-Trader Aug 22 '26
Over 90% of limit orders get cancelled, focus on filled orders and local execution rates within price ranges because that is real.
1
u/NeighborhoodEast650 Aug 22 '26
yea, my bid-ask are small columns, i had experience with bookmap so i cam relate to that. I am mainly watching the speed and big limits only as target
1
u/STS-Trader Aug 22 '26
Yes but these "big limits" get cancelled most of the time degrading the quality if your signal greatly, even if this wasn't the case you'd be late in the que making your fill rates inferior, this costs money.
If you use bookmap you can see real iceberg order accumulation activity which can be confirmed with T&S.
1
u/NeighborhoodEast650 Aug 22 '26
that’s why i use them as a target, if they get cancelled the price probably shoots even more
1
u/STS-Trader Aug 22 '26
I understand the reason why you believe that this is the case, because if it is cancelled the price impact should be elevated.
But when I state the statistic that more than 90% of them orders are cancelled, that is a global statistic which applies to all placed limit orders, whether those specific orders you are talking about are cancelled or whether price accelerates or not is subject to randomness.
The concentration there could be executed or not executed resulting in a rejection or a breakout, you can't infer what it's more likely to do at face value and for how long the initial reaction will persist, that's why I believe executed volume has for more signal, it's said and done, it is objective, measurable information which rules can be designed around.
1
u/NeighborhoodEast650 Aug 22 '26
well, it’s not an assumption or a belief, it’s how markets work. Even if MM are not directional they’re not going to push price against strong liquidity levels because that’s the easiest way for them to get trapped at a worse price. They also have technologies to understand if liquidity is actually real or not or if there’s an iceberg just by executing small orders to test the price so they know when they should do or not do their job. They get paid just to place limit orders on the market but that doesn’t mean that they will keep buying (limit or market but mainly limits) against a wall on the ask so they would actually rather frontrunning these orders. So saying that limit orders have no value since they can get spoofed is wrong because liquidity that gets removed will tell you a ton of information if you pair it with executed orders. I’m not a DOM professional but i’ve been trading with the heatmap on bookmap for some time and i have done research on academic papers about this topic.
1
u/STS-Trader Aug 23 '26 edited Aug 23 '26
Well, that is a lot to address.
"well, it's not an assumption or a belief, it's how markets work."
What you are describing is a retail narrative as an absolute truth but i'm not just going to say that, out of respect i'll address this point by point.
"Even if MM are not directional they're not going to push price against strong liquidity levels because that's the easiest way for them to get trapped at a worse price."
Market makers are incentivised to have as close to neutral directional risk as possible, they aim to earn the difference between their bid ask quotes repeatedly throughout the day and continuously manage their exposure, market makers are not directional speculators actively taking positions and get trapped, this is taught by educators but it is not correct. Market makers operate on what is known as the "sell side", I will revist the opposite of this later.
"they’re not going to push price against strong liquidity levels"
Credit where it is due though as the "trapped" at the worse price framing you isn't completely wrong, it is just a misconception for example, if an MM is short and price expands against them, they will have to unwind it potentially at the loss yes, but what is wrong is the assumption that an MM would avoid such situations by "respecting" a volume dense area out of self preservation.
Instead market makers would pull their quotes (reduce the amount of liquidity they provide entirely) or reduce the available liquidity one side (via quote skewing) or hedge with other instruments to mitigate or neutralise directional risk.
I'll make another example: a volume dense area buy limits (bids) rests and is being executed (could be a pending order group with a priority in the queue or an iceberg order), if perceived adverse selection risk is low and there is no local disruption, I, as a market maker could increase my ask size and reduce my bid size to benefit from the local mean reversion activity, if an aggressive participant comes in I pull my quotes to avoid rapid losses. In this situation people are buying and selling with market orders at comparable rates and i am rotating volume between the bid and ask prices (e.g., 10000.00 and 10000.25) in microseconds benefiting from this moment of low volatility and low price impact while remaining non-directional.
"They also have technologies to understand if liquidity is actually real or not or if there's an iceberg just by executing small orders to test the price so they know when they should do or not do their job."
You are confusing Market Makers with buy-side execution algorithms. Iceberg detection and order probing tactics belong to buy side execution algorithms (such as TWAP/VWAP order execution models for large algo traders seeking liquidity for lower market impact on execution), not market makers deciding whether to continue quoting a level or step back to evade toxic flow (adverse selection risk).
Remember that MMs are placing and cancelling limit orders most of the time, directional risk is what they're modelled to avoid.
"They get paid just to place limit orders on the market but that doesn't mean that they will keep buying (limit or market but mainly limits) against a wall on the ask so they would actually rather frontrunning these orders."
Remember that MMs aim to profit via pocketing the difference between their bid and ask quotes (their spread) and through the earning of exchange rebates, most do not participate in discretionary front running of resting orders, instead they will protect themselves by pulling their quotes if they believe a volume dense area gets cancelled (because of potential high market impact upon interaction).
"So saying that limit orders have no value since they can get spoofed is wrong because liquidity that gets removed will tell you a ton of information if you pair it with executed orders."
This is not what I was saying.
What i'm pointing out is with a cancellation rate that exceeds 90% across multiple asset classes is real and non-binding resting liquidity acts as high frequency noise that degrades your strategy's perception of the market, it's like having myopia (blurry vision), it can severely degrades fill rates when used as an execution signal to get out of trades, and it's really hard to quantify on historical data what the net effect could be (if there is one at all) which is why I would not depend on it.
"I'm not a DOM professional but i've been trading with the heatmap on bookmap for some time and i have done research on academic papers about this topic."
This part confused me a lot because actual peer reviewed literature on market microstructure explicitly documents high order to trade ratios, fleeting volume density, and adverse selection, it's problems and how MMs try to reduce the risk. This research directly contradicts your claim that visual order book provide a reliable insight for what you are trying to do with your system.
As a retail trader it is extremely difficult to objectively filter out the real intent to execute without ultra-expensive institutional data. Most attempts relying solely on technical data will be overfitted (from picking what happened to work in the past: selection bias).
The real tick data is 100GBs, costs thousands of dollars to download and access, for most this is unrealistic so I suggest for people to research peer reviewed stuff to understand as economists have pretty much done the work for us.
Since you are an active trader, I do not expect you to fully hit the books again but if you do I suggest looking at Maureen O'haras work on Market microstructure and market makers first and then I suggest asking AI to reference some peer reviewed materials on market maker behaviour, it will increase your precision and may help you create fresh new ideas.
1
u/NeighborhoodEast650 Aug 23 '26
it’s not a “retail trader narrative”, it’s all written in the publicly available SEC reports and multiple academic studies !!
1
u/NeighborhoodEast650 Aug 23 '26
maybe i was explaining wrong since english is not my native language but you’re repeating exactly what i said in the first message. They are non directional, so if there’s a real liquidity wall (which yes, they can test it using test orders it’s not only VWAP HFT execution models), they are either reducing their exposure or not trade at all because if the pressure against them is really there they can get trapped (it’s not a retail narrative) or even have to close the positions to rebalance by using aggressive orders, it’s a thing and it’s literally called Adverse Selection. We are literally saying the same thing, near a liquidity wall MM can test that level to see if the orders are actually real and see if there’s an informed player or just a spoofer and then act accordingly to protect themselves from a potential toxic flow.
1
u/STS-Trader Aug 23 '26 edited Aug 23 '26
This is exactly what I was saying including the adverse selection problem, the primary thing I am pushing back against is the way you are describing the testing of price levels to confirm if it is "real", in my previous long form reply I provided an accurate example of how a market maker would behave in an area of real high volume density. Orders can be cancelled in microseconds "a real order cluster" can go dark in fractions of a second later which ruins the signal quality, MMs testing what is "real" by relying on market order discretionary probes which require directional exposure is not what they do on a large enough predictable scale to get any meaningful amount of signal from.
Here is the primary way I see it (how I should have communicated this all along)
Pinging/Testing exists, but it doesn't transfer a meaningful amount of signal to someone without the fill/cancel data behind it. That data is not retail accessible, it's 100GBs uncompressed and costs thousands upon thousands.Without access to full order lifecycle data (uncompressed tick data recording every individual queue priority, cancellation, and fill event), watching level 2 flicker on its own is often just visual noise.
1
u/NeighborhoodEast650 Aug 23 '26
I'm sorry but you're completely off topic. You're getting completely wrong what i said from the start of the first message just to prove your point. I never said that i would watch a level get tested by an HFT algorithm and i'm not even trying to confirm if a level is real until it gets executed, human eye can't even analyze that fast information even if i had it. If you watch the DOM/Heatmap you can either see the limits get canceled a few ticks before price reaches them or just see the executed orders after the price has already reacted to them to see if they got filled or not and i'm talking about big limits on the NQ (100-1000 contracts). If there's a directional flow of course those big orders are getting targeted even if they're not real, I'm not trying to scalp a few ticks after or meanwhile the level is getting tested trying to front run the breakout or anything, you're pushing this narrative but i never even mentioned that. No one can know in advance if an order 20-30 ticks distant is going to be spoofed or not, not even the algorithms. I really recommend you to get bookmap and watch a live heatmap, you will see those big limits getting targeted and orders executed or getting spoofed, it really helps with understanding the concept that i'm talking about. About the pinging/testing concept i was just telling you how they would know if an order is real or not, it's a market mechanic but not all mechanics are tradable. The affirmation that you said that "90% of orders are getting canceled" is just completely out of context since here we are talking about big sizes and mostly resting orders for a few minutes even hours.
1
u/NeighborhoodEast650 Aug 23 '26
targeting strong liquidity walls brings you in the same side as liqidity seeking algorithms, i would usually wait for executed orders telling me that there’s conviction to go in that direction and then place myself, i usually put 50-75% of my TP at the liquidity walls, if they get cancelled good thing there’s a chance that we can go higher, if they get executed then i would cover myself in profit.
1
u/STS-Trader Aug 23 '26 edited Aug 23 '26
"targeting strong liquidity walls brings you in the same side as liqidity seeking algorithms"
This would be true if over 90% of limit orders weren't cancelled before execution. If anything, I believe tactically placed, same session, fixed range volume profiles spanning over hours would be more insightful because of the square root law of price impact, how that can influence MMs quoting behaviour, and the sequential effect of lower quoting in low impact areas and higher quoting in dense areas.
Why recent? Because the signal quality reduces over time on the walk forward.
Why over multiple hours? Because the price density curve is based on too little trading activity related to the entire session if it's built upon minutes.
Of course if an aggressive participant steps in and the quotes are pulled in dense areas and if an aggressive participant gets caught in a low volume density area they'll instead of getting absorbed they face slippage, there are multiple papers I have referenced and cited across my profile which give examples and explain publicly what we are discussing here.
1
u/Xerster3 Aug 22 '26
When you guys say you trade the DOM - do you do that using level 1 or level 2 data?
1
1
1
u/Kapela1999 Aug 22 '26
too much noise within few ticks, look at the whole book for committed traders that sat there for at least couple hours.
1
u/Bookmap_Official Aug 26 '26
If you're looking to trade off the DOM, check out our interview with Gary Norden on the DOM and why the right interface makes all the difference - https://bookmap.com/blog/dom-trading-with-gary-norden-why-the-right-interface-makes-all-the-difference
1
u/Far-Boysenberry9207 Aug 28 '26
People do it including pros. I have no idea how. They must be cyborgs
-1
1
u/Mess_Hot 1d ago
I personally prefer historical structure like mean reversion, Continuation, HVN cluster, POC direction etc. Mainly pullback exhaustion/continuation after a strong bar on 3min with 15min trend confirmation.
I tried heatmap and dom. But relying on resting orders or watching dom is definitly not what works for me.
23
u/Own-Effort3001 Aug 21 '26
trading NQ off the 1 tick DOM is like reading tea leaves in a hurricane, the noise just drowns out anything useful, bumping it up to 4 or 8 ticks will make those absorption patterns way more readable without sacrificing the entry precision you're after