NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 31
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
Exactly. The DC, in this case, is a casino. If you play against the casino, you're doomed to lose. Those who win often, over time, they just stop letting you into the casino. It's all by the book.
However, there is an option to play against the market, not against the DC. Do you want to use pips? Yes, as much as you like! Go to exchange market, not casino, refuse those sweet tricks that DC provide, such as instant execution at the old price or a full fill at any time of day, pay full commission and pips at your pleasure - no restrictions.
Sophistry...
I've been dealing with my broker for years and I've never had such a nonsense, I guess.
As for the rest, I'd estimate 97 to be "Russian",
that's... that's a different story... starting with whether or not they're even dilling... in the long run... ;)))
A bunch of "ex-traders", who "got tired of DC's machinations" and so we all are in old boots.
>> offer you a super-duper deal...
It does not inspire not only trust, but sometimes even as a subject for discussion.
*
About the casino is unnecessary... absolutely unnecessary...
Because I think that the example above with the stops, which we have the right to bypass through the permitted use of Expert Advisors
who do not by their work violate the terms of the agreement by regulation...
I am curious: who thinks otherwise?
And also why should I feel ashamed of it and have to blush like a loser at the blackboard when I get a profit... )))
...
Did I suggest you blush? I only warned you that playing against a DC/casino is a losing proposition. Do you want to bet?
You have the right to try to bypass the tricks of bad DNs without violating the rules, but the rules are in the hands of DNs who can interpret them as they want and may even change them if they are detrimental to their interests. This is reality. Whether it is good or evil is a philosophical question.
Your successful play against the market is in the interest of good DCs - the longer you play, the more you pay commission.
Did I suggest you blush? I only warned you that playing against a DC/casino is a losing proposition. Do you want to bet?
You have the right to try to play around the tricks of a bad dealer without breaking the regulations, but the regulations are in the hands of the dealer who can interpret them as he wants and may even change them if you try to harm his interests. This is reality. Whether it is good or evil is a philosophical question.
Your successful play against the market is in the interest of good DCs - the longer you play, the more you pay commission.
Argue about what? That dealing is a casino?
And I'm not going to...
About having the right to use anything that is not prohibited, including explicitly?
All the more so...
*
Apparently we're talking about different things.
*
If the deets tell me: ouch, that's no good.
The answer will be no less succinct: do wizen, gentlemen.
We're getting off-topic, though...
*
Apparently a new round of world order is coming and the political order is being replaced by the financial order.
In 10-20-50 years (who will live to see it ;) we will be looking at maps:
- geographic, geological, financial.
:))))))))))))))))))))))
Bravo! Thoughts like that often whirl in my head - I am unable to formulate them.
Amazing! Even today, a heated discussion erupted on Locke's last breath. No other topic on the forums generates such an agaltening onslaught of bacchanalian trader specials. And what's interesting is that the argument is given away as an opportunity to achieve the "goal" by simple "stopper" means. And the LOC is wrong. The Pythagorean theorem has 25 proofs, while geometers do not argue which one is correct.
My friend here writes that he has lost two deposits, applied the lock and the third one is growing slowly. My reply has been wrong, SL should be placed there. If you have not got it, you may try to get it right.
It would be funny... if it wasn't so sad... .
I even worked out a formula to calculate necessary profit to compensate unsuccessful entries by recommended SL. Profit trading did not seem real to me.
That's what I was thinking. It looks like the market is going to go through a long flat, during which locking strategies are very effective. So, lock should be forbidden.
The crowds chant: "Example! Example! Example!" an example of a locking strategy in the studio, please!
The topic is slowly going from necroposting to necrophilia...
:)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Probably the clearest example of how many people need locke as a tool,
and so much so, that companies went out of their way to save it by moving that part of their business to Europe.
;)
So gently and unobtrusively summing up our heated arguments.
*
7.62... This number reminds me of something... )))
The crowds chant: "Example! Example! Example!" an example of a locking strategy in the studio, please!
Well, that's easy. Define a channel. Open a lock inside the channel. At any border we close the profitable position and wait till the equity exceeds the balance.
The crowds chant: "Example! Example! Example!" an example of a locking strategy in the studio, please!
You already asked for examples and they were already in this thread. There's something wrong with my memory. I need to fix it...
Well, that's easy. Define a channel. Inside the channel we open a lot. Close a profitable position at any border and wait for the equity to exceed the balance.
Do we open at any border inside the channel and do not wait for anything?