Into the castle - page 4
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
In general: loss taking is the last thing to do. Let's not forget that a stop out is also a loss taking.
Once again: to make up for 50% of the loss you need 100% of the profit. And that's several months of good TS. So maybe we should wait for the right moment?
СанСаныч Фоменко:
Lockies are extremely successful in fast vertical market moves
In general: loss taking is the last thing to do. Let's not forget that a stop out is also a loss taking.
If you do not know the material (wave and not just wave), you cannot tell the difference between the wave impulse and false impulse, and the truth can be searched up to M1). And who said it would be easy - advertisement ))))
Counter-trend is going by major waves - hope for a deep correction and the formation of a new trend with the opposite vector. Since my research says that there are no perfect wave patterns, I do not take them into account in the experiment.
That is all. That is all. So there is no positive mo in points. Otherwise all these twists and turns are unnecessary. And if there is no positive MO, then it's not a strategy, but a tactic of breaking it down.
It depends on WHAT we are discussing, and more importantly, WHAT we are discussing under what conditions.
I made a condition for using lock from the very beginning - it is a profitable trading strategy. And the lock is an attempt to level out price movement prediction errors. But in this case not all is well either. If there is a series of errors, for example, but good overall percentage of history?
If there is no profitable strategy, there is nothing to discuss...
As of today I am using handheld locks. Had a few cases during the year. My success rate is 50/50. There is no statistics to speak of and therefore I have nothing to automate. Just some skill. But let's not forget that NOT success is just fixing a loss. And as a bonus while the lock is in place the drawdown does not increase. Moreover, as long as the lock is in place, no one prohibits you from continuing to trade.
And locke is an attempt to level out errors in predicting price movement. But even in this case not all is well. If, for example, a prediction error comes in series, with an overall good percentage on history?
And how many of these "errors" can you lock?
And I repeat the question:
Is it not necessary to restore the margin that is blocked by lots, unlike unprofitable positions?
And how many of these "errors" can you jam?
And I repeat the question:
Doesn't the margin that has been blocked by lots need to be recovered, unlike just losing positions?
The answer is straightforward: margin will return when positions are closed.
But there is a problem.
The issue is the size of the lots you are playing. If you have large lots and take profits on small market movements, the margin problem will be all over, the size of the margin can easily be equal to the size of the loss.
However, in the case of small lots and traceable quotation changes of just a few tens of pips, the margin can be neglected. In practice it is in the middle: the margin must be taken into account and "loss+margin" must be considered as a drawdown. Otherwise there might be not enough money to open a position with a 20% slippage.
The answer is straightforward: the margin will come back when the positions are closed.
But there is a problem.
It's about the size of the lot you are playing with. If you have large lots and take profits on small market movements, then the margin problem will be in all its glory, the size of the margin can easily be comparable to the size of the loss.
However, in the case of small lots and traceable quotation changes of just a few tens of pips, the margin can be neglected. In practice it is in the middle: the margin must be taken into account and "loss+margin" must be considered as a drawdown. Otherwise, the programmer might have not enough money to open a position with a 20% slippage.
So we conclude: this kind of wizardry is not necessary. It's easier and cheaper to close a losing position, than to freeze it with a loss at the same drawdown. In both cases, it is necessary to restore the lost equity to ensure the growth of the deposit. But in the case of the lots it is always more expensive!
Intended lock is a form of market masochism with a mixture of various phobias in addition.
The conclusion is that this kind of magic is useless. It is always easier and cheaper to close a losing position than to freeze it with a lot at the same depo drawdown. In both cases, it is necessary to restore the lost equity to ensure the growth of the deposit. But in the case of the lots it is always more expensive!
Intended lock is a form of market masochism with a mixture of various phobias in addition.
If a drawdown starts, you can simply close the lock - the loss will be the same as in the SL+spread.
But unlike irreversible loss at SL, in case of the lot you will have time and possibilities to handle the situation.
Is there a difference, or not?
What do you call someone who gives up right away ?