You're using a "lock" - page 7

New comment
 
artmedia70:
Mm-hmm, in the gif... And the video is their brutal exposé.
A huge number of such videos on YouTube, this is just the tip of a huge iceberg of gobbled up kilotons of chocolate in the hope of a free Miracle ))
 
artmedia70:
And where is the same opportunity, under the same conditions, but in a terminal, not in an exchange office?

Please:

Bought in the terminal by pressing "BAY" 1 lot$ for 3300r, leaving 500r in the DC as a deposit to get a mandate to make a 1st buy/sell operation and paying 100r spread for services in the hope of a rate increase, but the price started falling and reached 3200r per lot. Our client got angry, took a credit in DC for 1 lot for 100r, pledged to pay interest and commission in case of late repayment and immediately sold it by pushing on sell for 3200r. He is now "locked in". But he still has to sell 1 lot at a better price if he is lucky and then buy 1 lot at a lower price, again, if he is lucky and pay the late fee to DC. He should get "lucky" twice. He can sell 1 lot that he bought at first for 3500r. if he is lucky, he can wait for price reduction and buy 1 lot for 3100r. if he is lucky and pay expenses to DC. Only in this case, he will obtain the benefit of locking in the amount of (3500-3300)+(3200-3100)-swap-commission-2*100(spread for 2 buy-sell deals)=100p - swap-commission. But, will the market allow such tricks in front of the amazed crowd? And what the hell, the locker closes the deal and sometimes he is right. It is his choice. Do not interfere, please, it's the way he is used to trade.

 
yosuf:

But, will the market allow such stunts in front of an amazed crowd? And what the hell? ................................................... Please don't get in the way, he's so used to trading.

I'm crying )))))

Thank you, Yusufishe, it's unrepeatable.

 
Alex, you need to put in your encyclopaedia the notion of a LOCK as interpreted by Yusuf, as a matter of urgency. It should remain in the ages.
 
yosuf:

Please:

Bought in the terminal by pressing "BAY" 1 lot$ for 3300r, leaving 500r in the DC as a deposit to get a mandate to make a 1st buy/sell operation and paying 100r spread for services in the hope of a rate increase, but the price started falling and reached 3200r per lot. Our client got angry, took a credit in DC for 1 lot for 100r, pledged to pay interest and commission in case of late repayment and immediately sold it by pushing sell for 3200r. He is now "locked in". But he still has to sell 1 lot at a better price if he succeeds, and then buy 1 lot at a lower price, again, if he is lucky, and pay the late fee to DC. He should get "lucky" twice. He can sell 1 lot that he bought at first for 3500r. if he is lucky, he can wait for price reduction and buy 1 lot for 3100r. if he is lucky and pay expenses to DC. Only in this case, he will obtain the benefit of locking in the amount of (3500-3300)+(3200-3100)-swap-commission-2*100(spread for 2 buy-sell deals)=100p - swap-commission. But, will the market allow such tricks in front of the amazed crowd? And what the hell, the locker closes the deal and sometimes he is right. It is his choice. Do not interfere, please, it's his way of trading.

In order to make a profit from a position with zero volume (from two oppositely directed equal lots), you need to understand that this lock is equal to a loss for the time of locking. If the Buy position was down $10, and the trader opened a Sell position with the same lot as the losing Buy position, the drawdown of his funds will stop at -$10 (minus the initial spread). Now, if the Sell position will turn out to be in the plus of $10, then buy position will be in the minus of $20 (minus spread). No matter how you close them, even if kneeling to the East or tambourine, after their closing there will be minus $10 on balance (minus spread). In order to make profit with a negative lock, you need (in this case) to open one more Sell position, so its profit would cover the loss fixed by the lock and would be positive as well.

Would it not be better to close the loss (Buy) and open a "correct" Sell position? It is the same. Only without any trickery.

 
yosuf:

You're welcome:

But, will the market allow such stunts in front of an amazed crowd? And what the hell, says the locker and sometimes he's right. It is his choice. Don't interfere, please, it's the way he's used to trading.

Somehow you, Yusuf, completely forget that by waiting for Buy (which was blocked by Sell) to be at the plus and closing it, you will open a lock, and the Sell position, whose loss was held back by profit of Buy, so... The remainder of the Sell position will become even more negative (because we waited until the loss-making Buy was positive) and lose your money by the amount of its loss. And Kolyan doesn't care about your balance. He's watching your funds.
 
artmedia70:

In order to make a profit from a position with zero volume (from two oppositely directed equal lots), you must understand that this lock is equal to the loss of funds at the time of locking. If the Buy position was down $10, and the trader opened a Sell position with the same lot as the losing Buy position, the drawdown of his funds will stop at -$10 (minus the initial spread). Now, if the Sell position will turn out to be in the plus of $10, then buy position will be in the minus of $20 (minus spread). No matter how you close them, even if kneeling to the East or tambourine, after their closing there will be minus $10 on balance (minus spread). In order to make profit with a negative lock, you need (in this case) to open one more Sell position, so its profit would cover the loss fixed by the lock and would be positive as well.

Would it not be better to close the loss (Buy) and open a "correct" Sell position? It is the same. Only without any trickery.

Somehow you, Yusuf, completely forget that by waiting for the Buy (which was blocked by Sell) to turn positive and closing it, you thereby unwind the lock, and the Sell position, whose loss was held back by the profit of the Buy, so... The remainder of the Sell position will become even more negative (because we waited until the loss-making Buy was positive) and lose your money by the amount of its loss. And Kolyan doesn't care about your balance. He's watching your funds.

Most traders think so, but a certain part of them think otherwise and try to use locking as a tool for break-even trading. If, in general, the probability of winning is about 50%, then with locking 0.5*0.5=0.25, i.e. 25%, because they should be lucky at least 2 times. Sometimes this is fulfilled and the locksmiths refer to this very case when defending a lock. The actual loss that exists, but has not yet been settled, is considered temporary bad luck, and the lock "experts" almost always successfully "fix" it at zero or plus. This topic is not very popular, there are special threads proving the detrimental effect of location, but with enviable regularity it excites the traders' minds, because of the ease of getting into this situation, good thing MT4 has all conditions for it - for locking no additional bail is taken and the loss is blocked, but not executed, until a better time, which comes sometimes, to the delight of lockers. The price of the issue is so high that the possibility of locking the position has made it impossible to change the obsolete terminal MT4 for the more advanced version of MT5 and MT4 is now being updated introducing MT5 elements without touching the lock. Inexperienced traders would better not deal with lock, and the inveterate lockers cannot be fixed, this is their trading style, they prove with their whole being, with concrete examples, the usefulness of lots, while you have to agree with them, grinning and remembering about lost opportunities in your practice. Nevertheless, even among them there are no millionaires, let alone billionaires. A self-respecting person, if you take the big picture, should not be in a field where there are no billionaires, but if you really want to, you should aim to become a billionaire. Soros and Buffett aren't just in trading.

Finally, the locksmiths think that a lock is a lock.

 
yosuf:
A self-respecting person, if you take the big picture, should not be involved in an area where there are no billionaires,
Yusuf, I will be your chronicler. It is an honour for me.
 
artmedia70:
Somehow you, Yusuf, completely forget that by waiting for Bai (which was locked by Sell) to turn positive and closing it, you will open a lock, and the Sell position, whose loss was held back by Bai's profit, so... The remainder of the Sell position will become even more negative (because we waited until the loss-making Buy was positive) and lose your money by the amount of its loss. And Kolyan doesn't care about your balance. He's watching your funds.
I argue that 2*2=4 and you counter by saying that it is 2+2=4.
 
Mischek:
Alex, you need to urgently add the concept of LOCK to your encyclopaedia as interpreted by Yusuf. It should remain in the ages.

First of all, idiomatic expressions are not welcome in the handbook.

Secondly, the lock is not an algorithmic feature, but a disease of the trader's brain (psychopathology) at the penultimate stage.

Thirdly, I can't contribute information from which I don't understand whether the author of the post confirms it or refutes it.

123456789
New comment