Forex strategies - page 7
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
If you know the direction, you have to put a stop in order to fix losses reliably, to be sure and guarantee losses so to speak)))
Do not forget that there are emotions such as greed, fear, heroism - they all help us to "make money".
If you want, read "Market Wizards", you'll find out how people earn money there....
knowing the trend and trading the trend are two different things
The trend is set on the higher timeframe, you trade on the lower timeframe.
"Trading against the market" is when the trend is up on the daily and you sell on the hour
You're right. Determining the direction is a bit of a tricky business. But getting in tune with what's going on is possible. It's not a panacea, but it will save you from the madness of going against the trend.
So, then we get the following conclusion, getting in tact makes us set stops, the size of which losses will be dictated by MM, and since it will be achieved by reducing the lot, and reducing the lot will in turn give not only a decrease in losses but also a decrease in profits ... hence the moral:
If you trade with trends, with stops, without averaging and keeping MM, is it possible to do much with an average deposit of less than thousand dollars in brokerage companies, or even more, with micro, that have become so popular due to possibility to keep MM on small deposits?
And as a consequence, the behavior of the crowd that loses becomes clear, because only on a small deposit one can make a fortune, all the rest of course is correct, but it does not feed.
It is like poker in a tournament, the players are forced to take more risks at the beginning of the tournament and strive for small risks closer to the finish.
"All" or "all"? Probably not all. But it's a fact that most of them are.
Why?
1. Because the statistical advantage is on the side of brokerage companies, or rather the trader loses a priori. Spread, swap (total), commission, slippage .....
2. Market dependencies, especially in forex are very weak, it is difficult to detect them.
3. DC stimulates traders to trade more often, so that traders lose more on each trade.
4. They offer opium for the people in the form of Lovins and other grainy TS, not to mention the pay.ru service, stuffed with pilferers.
5. Aggressive advertising from brokerage companies promises great profits in the financial markets, and beginners, after listening to an introductory course on the plum from brokerage companies, essentially without understanding anything, they throw their first deposit on 99.99% of the plum.
6. You should follow a very long and difficult path, lose a lot of nerves, money and health to achieve something in this difficult business. Not everyone can stand it all.
In fact the reasons are many. In fact, without at least 5 years of experience trader is doomed to failure. Especially in forex and especially when trading through kitchen DCs.
Dare I ask you if you have a profitable forex strategy, do you have a strategy with stops, locks, profits in it?
There is no doubt in my mind that there are. But I doubt that there are any market inefficiencies which allow to steadily earn more than 30-50% per annum with a maximum drawdown of up to 10%. With the exception perhaps of high-participants who take the most profitable bids that haven't even been put on the market yet.
I don't use locks, takeovers very rarely, stops ALWAYS, averaging of any kind. My success in forex is very modest, I consider it probably the most difficult market in all respects.
There is no doubt in my mind that there are. But I doubt that there are any market inefficiencies which allow to steadily earn more than 30-50% per annum with a maximum drawdown of up to 10%. With the exception perhaps of high-participants who take the most profitable bids that haven't even been put on the market yet.
I don't use locks, takeovers very rarely, stops ALWAYS, averaging of any kind. My success in forex is very modest, I consider it probably the most difficult market in all respects.
If there is a pattern (3pc) - a primitive TS short stops - long profits leads the account steadily into minus - blame the stops. forex does not technically allow to stand in the right direction without triggering stops. Actually (debatable question) one cannot do without hedging, even if it is a temporary position.
I do not think we can do without hedging, albeit temporarily.
I don't know, then.
Article, come on, what's the trick?! :)
Yes it is clear from the picture - he was building up a LOT, only he hid the size of the LOT. You need to test without changing LOT, otherwise everything is rubbish!!!
In the presence of patterns (3 pieces) - a primitive TS short stops - long profits leads the account steadily in the negative - blame the stops. forex does not technically allow to stand in the right direction without triggering stops. Actually (debatable) one cannot do without hedging, even if it is a temporary position.
The TS needs a strategy and it turns out the only strategy - not a single losing trade (I mean not a lot and a currency trade).Thanks for the answer.
The culprit is not the stops, but the wrongly set stops. I have encountered numerous recommendations in the literature to set stops on the basis of maximum allowable loss in a trade. I think this is a bad practice. Stop should be logically (or technically) justified, and the lot is selected for MM considerations. Close stops will be knocked out by market noise if the TS is medium or long term. Short stops are only acceptable in scalping, focused on entry into a rapid movement.
.
Hedging/locking is self-defeating .
.
Not a single losing trade is a Nirobshchina. Losing trades are a MUST. Otherwise one trade will kill the deposit. It's like an overhead in any business.
It's not the stops that are to blame, it's the wrong stops. I have repeatedly encountered recommendations in the literature to set stops based on the maximum permissible loss in a trade. I think this is a bad practice. Stop should be logically (or technically) justified, and the lot is selected for MM considerations. Close stops will be knocked out by market noise if the TS is medium or long term. Short stops are only acceptable in scalping, focused on entry into a rapid movement.
.
Hedging/locking is self-defeating .
.
Not a single losing trade is a Nirobshchina. Losing trades are a MUST. Otherwise one trade will kill the deposit. It's like overhead in any business.
Right stops standing 50pp. under (for example) resistance, the trend can be knocked out by a false breakdown (bullish, bearish trap), and trading 100pp. stop and 100pp. profit is somehow not attractive. The lots with minuses may be! You may close one or two deals in minus - and if there will be 68% of them.
Exactly in the middle I want to put philosophies. Example: give a professional a -50pp position. - You may do whatever you want, but you will make zero profit.
It's not the stops that are to blame, it's the wrong stops. I have repeatedly encountered recommendations in the literature to set stops based on the maximum permissible loss in a trade. I think this is a bad practice. Stop should be logically (or technically) justified, and the lot is selected for MM considerations. Close stops will be knocked out by market noise if the TS is medium or long term. Short stops are only acceptable in scalping, focused on entry into a rapid movement.
.
Hedging/locking is self-defeating .
.
Not a single losing trade is a Nirobshchina. Losing trades are a MUST. Otherwise one trade will kill the deposit. It's like an overhead in any business.