You're using a "lock" - page 4

New comment
 
server:
I do understand that locks are evil, but you may or may not agree with me, there are people who use lock strategies, there are a lot of undervalued strategies, and by digging deeper, you may find something.
A trader who successfully breaks lots, can achieve success without lots. You should try to trade breakeven by other methods, analyzing the situations that lead to the forced locking. If you do not want to trade breakeven by other means, you will need additional funds for the locks' service. If a trader is used to dealing with losing lots, this is his style, so you should not discourage him, because lots encourage traders to analyze the market more attentively. Perhaps, this is the main advantage of lots, which makes up for insignificant spread, swap, and commission. Lock requires you to carefully analyze the market, and this is the main good and gives a trader a quality advantage. You need to learn how to manage locks by asking supporters to talk about it here or in another thread. Some are exceptionally categorical about "lockjumpers", even ridiculing them, and practice does not support this.
 
server:
What strategies do you mostly use? scalper strategies?
I trade an EA, SL=TP=200-700pp, counter-trend, locking. On the tester, variant with locking outperformed standard one with immediate closing by 20% on all basic indicators. Moreover, position is not closed unless profit is less than 20 pips, otherwise it goes to second round locking the position. So far so successful. You can find monitoring of this strategy in the signals.
 
Contender:

Go to any exchanger and make two transactions at once: buy $100 and sell $100.

And tell the astonished teller that you have "locked in" and now you are not afraid of where the exchange rate will go.

A good example of loco, I liked it :)))

Well, yes, the bankers find it very acceptable.

Now we have to wait for growth to sell 100 above transaction price and for fall below transaction price to buy 100$.

However it should be noted that sometimes the lock is not always made instantly, as in this example,

but when the position is in deficit.

The lock is not used, but if I manage to sell from the high and stand in buy from the catch, I will sometimes use it. I also bring both positions to breakeven.

The so-called positive lock.

But here's the thing: in this situation it's more profitable to exit one position and enter the other,

it's more profitable to exit one position and enter the other.

 
YuraZ:

Good example of a loca, liked it :)))

Well yes, for bankers this option is very acceptable.

Now we have to wait for growth to sell 100 above transaction price and fall below transaction price to buy 100$.

However it should be noted that sometimes the lock is not always made instantly, as in this example,

but when the position is in deficit.

The lock is not used, but if I manage to sell from the high and stand in buy from the catch, I will sometimes use it. I also bring both positions to breakeven.

The so-called positive lock.

But here's the thing: in this situation it's more profitable to exit one position and enter the other,

it is more useful.

Wrong conclusion on account of example loc. If you bought $100, waited, during this time the rate fell and you hastily sold $100 - this is exactly the example of the trader, who avoids the lock and recognizes the loss due to a price fall. And the locking trader always has a chance to get out of this situation even with profit, this is exactly the example to demonstrate the process of locking.

This simple example would be good:

Bought a $100 note for $3,300p in the hope of a rise in the exchange rate, the price started to fall and reached $3,200p per note. The client got angry, hid the note in a safe place for better times, ran to the bank, took a loan of 100 USD and sold it for 3200. Now he is "locked in". But he still has to sell the note he bought in the boutique at a better price, if he is lucky, and then buy the note at a lower price for the proceeds, again if he is lucky, and pay off the bank by paying the bank's costs. He must get "lucky" twice. He can sell the hidden note for 3500r if he is lucky, wait for the price to drop and buy the note for 3100r if he is lucky and settle with the bank. Only in this case, he will benefit from locking at a rate of (3500-3300)+(3200-3100)-30(services of bank)-2*20(spread for 2 sale-purchase deals)=230r. But, will the market allow performing such tricks in front of the amazed crowd? But the devil never kills, the locker closes the deal and sometimes he is right. It is his choice. Don't interfere, please, it's the way he's used to trading.

 
yosuf:
Wrong conclusion about the lock example. If you bought $100, waited, during this time the rate has fallen and you hurriedly sold $100 - this is exactly the example of trader, who avoids the lock and recognizes the loss due to price decrease. And the locking trader always has a chance to get out of this situation even with a profit, this is exactly the example to demonstrate the process of locking.
You come to an exchange office, buy 100 quid for rubles and immediately buy N-number of rubles for quid, you know, like USDRUR... The rest is as follows...
 
artmedia70:
Came to an exchange office, bought 100 quid for rubles and immediately bought an N number of rubles for quid, well, sort of - USDRUR... The rest of the text...
Wrong. Apparently, you meant to say bought euros for quid to "hedge" your actions by messing around with 3 currencies.
 
yosuf:
Wrong.

Why?

Hypothetically: you bought 100 quid for 1,010 roubles and immediately bought 1,000 roubles for 100 quid. We have in our pocket both 100 quid and 1,000 roubles after making two multi-directional trades on the same currency pair minus a 10 rouble spread.

 
yosuf:
Wrong. Apparently, you meant to say bought Euros for quid to "hedge" your actions by linking to 3 currencies.
One Dollar/Ruble currency pair.
 
artmedia70:

Why?

Hypothetically: you bought 100 quid for 1,010 roubles and immediately bought 1,000 roubles for 100 quid. We have in our pocket both 100 quid and 1,000 roubles after making two multi-directional trades on the same currency pair minus a spread of 10 roubles.

Another for the quid +10 reverse exchange rate and another 20 roubles
 
Zeleniy:
Another +10 for the quid and a total of 20 roubles
That's what I mean when you open two oppositely directed positions, like a spread is not taken from one deal - for a fool for a beer
123456789
New comment