Looking for an MTS. giving a steady 20% or more per month - 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
>> THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING!))
You haven't even guessed WHAT yet.
So you kinda support me?)
No, I don't. Your result of 0% loss is achieved at too high a price of 58% drawdown. In fact, in the post addressed to registred, I was talking specifically about your report.
P.S. Generally speaking, I see an advantage in systems without stops only in one case: if it is a multi-currency system, which allows you to open a dozen or so positions simultaneously. Of course, the size of the positions must be appropriate - say, 0.1 lot for every $10K of balance. But in this case stops must be virtual or very distant, because anything can happen.
P.P.S. I looked at the report more closely. It is unlikely that any brokerage company will allow you to do such outright pipsing: most positions are closed on the same minute bar at which they are opened.
HIDDEN,
Hmm. Real nice. That's not 20 percent, that's 200 percent a month. What is the catch?
Judging by the fact that some of the orders have stop-losses and some do not, at least two different systems are working there?
I am striving for this myself, by filtering deals more carefully. However, I understand that it may take you a thousand years to get there, but you will never achieve the result. I would be satisfied with a small percentage of small losing trades.
If you think that one losing trade in a system is its failure or at least a failure, then you have some kind of bias in the criteria for evaluating systems. Reconsider them. The main thing in a system is not the absence of losing trades (you can easily do it by playing with microscopic lots and never fixing losses), but an acceptable financial output in a given time.
A large paper drawdown is an unacceptable solution, because it is a terrible waste of time. In grebec's report it is exactly the same case of a switch: a paper drawdown of 58% is considered more acceptable than accepting a small real loss.
The main thing is to increase the percentage of successful trades in a row using systems with stops, rather than jumping into the depths of an imaginary trend. I do not do any trade filtering, there are no objective conditions for analyzing losing trades, because the problem is more not in the system, if it works, but in the use of stops. A stop is a potential recognition of a mistake, and a lot of people in the market want you to admit this mistake, even if the whole thing goes in your direction, which happens more often in a working system than if there were no stops at all. If a stop does work, I believe this is only possible in the case of a loss, if there is a high enough probability of continued movement against the open position, this admission of error is a truly wise decision, as often a new open position in the opposite direction will pay off the previous, unprofitable position. Otherwise, it is simply a misunderstanding and misjudging of the situation when there is a hunt for stops and then a reversal in the right direction. These are the things that a really good system with stops should be based on.
HIDDEN,
Hmm. Real nice. That's not 20 percent, that's 200 percent a month. What is the catch?
Judging by the fact that some of the orders have stop losses and some do not, at least two different systems work there?
Simply SUPER! Both in content and design.
The only question is the time frame - 3 weeks. But the author is not a novice and obviously knows what he is showing.
Stops are not needed there - the circular hedge works.
.
And no 0% loss-making trades :)
That's what's interesting. Just curious to see what set of pairs can do such wonders. It's been a long time since I've looked at the "there must be stops in the system" dogma...
No, I don't. Your result - 0% loss - was achieved at too dear a cost of a 58% drawdown. In fact, in the post addressed to registred, I was talking specifically about your report.
P.S. Generally speaking, I see an advantage in systems without stops only in one case: if it is a multi-currency system, which allows you to open a dozen or so positions simultaneously. Of course, the size of the positions must be appropriate - say, 0.1 lot for every $10K of balance. But even then, stops must be virtual or very far away, because anything can happen.
P.P.S. I took a closer look at the report. I doubt other brokerage companies will allow such pipsing: most positions are closed on the same minute bar.
what kind of drawdown do you think would be unproblematic???(in %)
Everyone has their own criteria. If you are happy with 58%, even if it is short-term, then trade at your own pleasure. I certainly won't. My personal criteria - no more than 15%.
Everyone has their own criteria. If you are happy with 58%, even if it is short-term, then trade at your own pleasure. I'm definitely not happy with it. My personal criteria - no more than 15%.
You see, the drawdown was so big because the initial deposit was 1000, and the lot was 1.0... that's why the result...
If I had tested with a deposit of 10 000, the drawdown would have been much less!
(>> I can prove it.)