Once again, about the lokas. - page 35
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Let us break down the situation without going to extremes, but with them in mind. It is necessary to study the maximum price change in one month over, say, 10 years. Invest 1,000 first and start by tracking the deposit. As you are actively trading half of the market, the deposit will probably grow, otherwise you add another 1000. You can't be unlucky sometimes and sometimes stay with a profit, which goes to strengthening the deposit too. I think for calm trading it is enough to stockpile 10000 and put them in step by step if you need them, or maybe you won't need to put them all in.
It is an inherently flawed practice. Lock is not a trading system, lock is a psychological trick.
If you get rid of the balance line and start watching the equity line, you won't need to lock at all.
Since equity is the same for locking and closing a position. However, you will have to spend additional spread.
Investing additional equity in case of a bad position will simply camouflage the weaknesses of the strategy,
thereby preventing you from seeing the mistakes and correcting them.
It is an inherently flawed practice. Lock is not a trading system, lock is a psychological trick.
If you get rid of the balance line and start watching the equity line, you won't need to lock at all.
Since equity is the same for locking and closing a position. However, you will have to spend additional spread.
Investing additional equity in case of a bad position will simply disguise the strategy's weaknesses,
thus preventing you from seeing the mistakes and correcting them.
Overconfidence in the strategies of many leads to the loss of the deposit, despite their advantages. The market will sooner or later break any strategy. The market only needs to find a small gap in a strategy to crush it unexpectedly for you. And the strategy of investing in a pair with subsequent profits only from successful lock-in purchases, leaves the market no chance to defeat your strategy. Apparently, I'm not explaining it properly.
I've heard a lot of explanations, it's all nonsense. Mathematically (without taking the spread into account) there is no difference in closing a position or locking it. Except that the statistics of the broken trade will be distorted, hence the fallacies and difficulties in correcting mistakes.
Write somewhere in a prominent place locked is hiding of trading errors from the observer.
I have already described it in my articles, but it seems that reading is not in vogue here. Immediately statistics on losing trades, ineffective entries and exits appear.
Remember, for the trader it is equity that matters, and for the investor it is balance. So, careless traders working on other accounts have invented how to draw the balance in a nice way using lot trading. And this contagion has spread to traders who trade on their own accounts. Agree that it's more pleasant to trade when you have only profitable deals in your history. But lock is not a strategy, it's just lulling the critical eye, pure psychology.
I've heard a lot of explanations, it's all nonsense. Mathematically (without taking the spread into account) there is no difference in closing a position or locking it. Except that the statistics of the broken trade will be distorted, hence the fallacies and difficulties in correcting errors.
Write somewhere in a prominent place locked is hiding of trading errors from the observer.
I have already described it in my articles, but it seems that reading is not in vogue here. Immediately statistics on losing trades, ineffective entries and exits appear.
Remember, for the trader it is equity that matters, and for the investor it is balance. So, careless traders working on other accounts have invented how to draw the balance attractive by means of hawker trading. And this contagion has spread to traders who trade on their own accounts. Agree that it's more pleasant to trade when you have only profitable deals in your history. But lock is not a strategy, it's just lulling the critical eye, pure psychology.
I cannot convey to you that pure lock is really nonsense when trying to profit from both selling and buying. In my approach the difference is that we only capture profits from purchases, for which we are forced to invest the entire price field within which we intend to deploy. This investment will happen gradually, first from our own funds, then including profits from purchases, followed by sales. I always tell students that I am a lousy teacher, I cannot explain well because I am a researcher and engineer by nature. Since the strategy proposed for discussion is related to partial locking, it is difficult to discuss all the nuances within this branch, since we are confused with a full lock. If the moderators don't mind, I'll open a new thread for discussion.
You don't want to take your word for it, check by hand, convert the lock or partly lock trade to netting and see that there is no difference.
The only difference is in statistical processing of trade results. The more locking was used, the more unreliable the statistical report will be. The more difficult it is to adequately evaluate the strategy.
After all, you can, without risking anything, trade in sales mode.
You can only get your pension without risking anything. And that's if the postman brings it home.
yosuf, Locke doesn't exist in nature. It is just a different way of recording trades. When actually closed trades can be temporarily not transferred to the "history" tab.
There is no difference. There is no benefit. There is only the additional swap and that if it lasts through the night.
You can only get your pension without risking anything. And that's if the postman brings it home.
yosuf, Locke doesn't exist in nature. It is just a different way of recording trades. When actually closed trades can be temporarily not transferred to the "history" tab.
There is no difference. There is no benefit. There is only an extra swap and that's if it lasts through the night.
If you don't want to take your word for it, check by hand, recalculate a lot or partly lot trade to netting and see that there is no difference.
The only difference is in the statistical processing of trade results. The more locking was used, the more unreliable the statistical report will be. The harder it will be to adequately evaluate the strategy.
If swap is charged when you buy a currency, it will be deducted when you sell it, so there will be no profit when you maintain both a buy and a sell order at the same time. By the way, a negative swap is often bigger than a positive one, so you will either break even or be in the red.
If swap is charged when you buy a currency, it will be deducted when you sell it, so there will be no profit when you maintain both a buy and a sell order at the same time. By the way, a negative swap is often bigger than a positive one, so you will either break even or be in the red.