Hedging Martingale. - page 18
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
What is the point of holding the first position if the opposite one is opened with an increased lot? Manually, it can be explained by the fact that the trader feels more comfortable, but in an EA, why?
the guarantee that we will be on our own in any case.
Well, we are only guaranteed to keep our money if we don't open anything )))))))
if we open a short 1 position and then open a long 2 position without closing the first one, we could just do a flip
Well, we are only guaranteed to keep our money if we don't open anything )))))))
If you open a short 1 position and then open a long 2 without closing the first, you could simply reverse
on the first trade, we enter with two orders, when the required profit is reached, one of them closes. then the risk=0.
upon receiving the signal, the opposite position with a bigger lot is opened, if the price goes against us, we will not lose anything, if it goes our way, we will gain.
Yes, Sniper is a good TS, I tried to trade with it - it works. There are other videos with entry points on H1 and M5. Unfortunately, there is no complete information on this system.
There is an unremarkable "strategy" based on the banal game theory with balanced lots. The essence of the matter is that the first deal we get profit, and then we "break" it with lots.
Any fool will profit, even if he doesn't know mathematics and its theories and hasn't heard anything about losing lots. The main thing is to get this same profit, and it's no problem to "break" it.
Eventually, the profit that has been "eliminated" does not compensate for losses that arise from losing trades. I.e. negative expected payoff.
and it's a pity that the term "breaking up" has become so attached to "lots" in forex runet -there is nothing to break up, it's self-defeating
in the first trade we enter with two orders, when the required profit, one is closed. then the risk=0.
upon receiving the signal, the opposite transaction is opened with a larger lot, if the price goes against us, we will not lose anything, if it goes in our direction - we will earn.
as long as there are periods (even if very short) when the volume of long is not equal to the volume of short - the risk is non-zero.
closing of half of the volume ("safe-house rule", if I am not mistaken) in the expectation that it will protect us from a possible loss of the second half is illusory, since the first profit is not guaranteed and in case of failure we obtain a double loss (we need to earn profit, as I said before).
although in itself the practice of partial closing is not bad
Opening an opposite position of double volume is equivalent to simply opening a single position for the overturn, the sense of keeping an extra position a day later paying swap?
My question is: what is the difference between the original version of TS Sniper and the original one, is it worth recommending to watch these videos in YouTube, where cheerful young man is screwing his students nastily with marker pens on a flip chart, by the way it's a great example of very effective and challenging rhetoric, I bet he should work as a salesman or a marketer, The businessman obviously knows how to use the techniques of evoking a sense of uncertainty and inner undifferentiated irritation of the audience, which he clearly is actively using, this material should be noted by all those preparing to make presentations or reports to problematic customers - as you know the best sales pitch is a provocative sales pitch....... but sorry I got distracted ......
Sniper is basically based on a good foundation - namely, trading in the trend, coming out of consolidation, breakdown of support/resistance levels (they are called impulse levels for some reason), turning resistance into support and vice versa, fixing the price after the impulse, working off a false breakdown, working off failure to form a new maximum/minimum and something else. For some reason Sniper turned into a lock-graal afterwards......
as long as there are periods (even if very short) when the volume of long is not equal to the volume of shorts, there will be a non-zero risk.
closing of half of the volume ("safe-house rule", if I am not mistaken) in the expectation that it will protect against a possible loss of the second half is illusory, since the first profit is not guaranteed, and in case of failure we obtain a double loss (as mentioned above, we need to earn profit)
although in itself the practice of partial closing is not bad
Opening an opposite position of double volume is equivalent to simply opening a single position for the overturn, the sense of keeping an extra position a day later paying swap?
My question is: what is the difference between the original version of TS Sniper and the original one, is it worth recommending to watch these videos in YouTube, where cheerful young man is punishing his students by nastily tapping marker on flipchart, by the way, it's a great example of very effective and challenging rhetoric, I bet he should work as a salesman or a marketer, The businessman obviously knows how to use the techniques of evoking a sense of uncertainty and inner undifferentiated irritation of the audience, which he clearly is actively using, this material should be noted by all those preparing to make presentations or reports to problematic customers - as you know the best sales pitch is a provocative sales pitch....... but sorry I got distracted ......
Sniper is basically based on a good foundation - namely, trading in the trend, coming out of consolidation, breakdown of support/resistance levels (they are called impulse levels for some reason), turning resistance into support and vice versa, fixing the price after the impulse, working off a false breakdown, failure to form a new maximum/minimum and something else.... for some reason, sniper became a lock-granular system......
I think so too, it's a good system, but how to make a robot that would correctly identify the moment of entering a position?
If you know it, tell me.
i>- And why do you think that the first deal will catch a stop loss? the rules are very simple, if you follow them, it is very difficult to make a mistake, and then there is no risk.
this is a great strategy: simple, reliable and profitable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyVU-II1p20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmiX7gmL3ak
all bullshit.... no it's not, no.... how ninka hagen sang with a pioneer tie on the frg stage... :-)))
There is an unremarkable "strategy" based on the banal game theory with balanced lots. The point is that the first deal is a profit, and then we "break" it with lots.
Any fool will profit, even if he doesn't know mathematics and its theories and hasn't heard anything about losing lots. The main thing is to get this same profit, and it's no problem to "break" it.
Eventually, the profit that has been "eliminated" does not compensate for losses that arise from losing trades. I.e. negative expected payoff.