"Trees don't grow to the sky" - page 25
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 if there is no SL because the TS is reversible? Or is the SL performed according to the market or some algorithm? Therefore, linking it to an SL is not entirely correct. And so you have to admit that the higher the load, the higher the risk. Especially, as you yourself write that if you fill a position, the SL gets closer - which means that the risk component increases with increasing position, because the deposit load increases proportionally to increasing the position, so the SL should be pulled closer to keep the level of loss (read - risk).
faa1947 : If SL is above (below) the breakeven point, the difference between SL and breakeven is a guaranteed profit (excluding slippage).
And if price has gone in the wrong direction? Or in that case SL guarantees that it went in the wrong direction? )))
What if there is no SL because the TS is reversible? Or is the SL performed according to the market or some algorithm? Therefore, linking it to an SL is not quite correct.
I do not see the logic. Porridge. Either we are discussing the SD or the outputs calculated from the quote. What's the point of piling it all up.
And so you have to admit that the higher the charge, the higher the risk.
Doesn't follow from the previous one.
Especially, as you yourself write that if you increase position, the SL is pulled closer - which means that the risk component increases with increasing position as the deposit load increases in proportion to increasing position, so the SL should be pulled closer to keep the level of loss (read - risk).
We pull the SL to fix the risk.
And what if the price moves in the wrong direction? Or what if the SL guarantees that it went in the wrong direction? )))
SL is always triggered if the price moves in the wrong direction. It feels like you're kidding me.
Exactly - there's no need to pile everything up. An SL is an SL. Risk is risk. They are only indirectly related because there may be no SL due to the nature of the TS.
faa1947 : Pulling up the SL in order to fix the risk.
By doing so we acknowledge an increase in risk, because if we leave the SL as it was - the risk will be increased.
faa1947 : SL is always triggered if the price is in the wrong direction. It feels like you're mocking me.
Exactly - there is no need to lump everything together. SL is SL. Risk is risk. They are only indirectly related because SL may not be present due to the nature of the TS.
By doing so we acknowledge an increase in risk, because if SL is left as it was, the risk will be increased.
Then you have me completely confused. I don't understand how SL can guarantee profit?After your posts I am waning in the hope of falling asleep.
It's just not your usual bedtime ritual
faa, I am sorry, but you started some scholastic argument about risks, while I was talking about the information about PAMM, which is available to us - about the deposit load. With the leverage allowed on PAMM (100:1), a deposit over 30-40% - is a significant risk, and you can hardly deny its connection with the risk: all accounts with the curve a la ups & downs are extremely risky, and their excessively high deposit load confirms this. What are we arguing about then?
If putting out an SL guaranteed profit, then everyone would always put out an SL. But unfortunately, SL does not guarantee profit. I don't see how SL can guarantee profit?
With the allowable leverage of a PAMM (100:1), a load above 30-40% is already a significant risk, and you can hardly deny its connection to risk: all accounts with an ups & downs curve are extremely risky, and their overly high load confirms it. What are we arguing about then?
The risk is the drawdown, not the load. The load can be reduced by a factor of several if you use higher leverage.
On the contrary, a larger leverage will limit the opening of new trades, i.e. it will reduce the risk. This is all kind of obvious.
TP ensures that profits will not rise above the set limit.
SL guarantees that the loss will not exceed the specified limit.
Neither SL nor TP guarantees that TP or SL will be executed in any particular trade.
Or, guys, are you talking about some other guarantees?
PS Something tells me that, as is customary here on this forum, the terms are used by all the same, but the meaning of these terms everyone understands differently.