"Trees don't grow to the sky" - page 26
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
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?
... I don't see how SL can guarantee profit?
Leonid, if I understand correctly, your opponent is saying that when the SL is in a profitable area (i.e. the profit in the position is in profit and the SL is moved above b/c of the long), then this same SL guarantees (adjusted for slippage) that your position will close in profit. In such cases, it's not uncommon to add to a profitable position, perhaps more than once. On the surface, it may look like overloading of the deposit, but this imaginary "overload" does not carry any risk, because you are already in the "In the money", i.e. "in the money", using stock language, and protected from losses.
The SL set at the opening of a position does not, of course, guarantee a profit, that's out of the question.
As always the problem is terminology )))
Leonid, if I understand correctly, your opponent is saying that when the SL is in a profitable area (i.e. the profit in the position is in profit and the SL is moved above b/c of the long), then this same SL guarantees (adjusted for slippage) that your position will close in profit. In such cases, it's not uncommon to add to a profitable position, perhaps more than once. On the surface, it may look like a deposit overload, but this imaginary "overload" does not carry any risk, because you are already in the "In the money", i.e. "in the money", in stock terms, and protected from losses.
For the SL to be able to guarantee profit in this manner, the price must move into the profitable area. But it is not that simple. If the order is placed on the peak and is closed by the SL below the peak, the price may suffer a loss even though the SL will be in the profitable area.)
Don't be confused :)))
If SL is to guarantee profit in such a way, the price should enter the profit zone. But here everything is not so simple either.
If we are talking about a single order then it's simple. SL is in the profit zone and it is highly probable (minus the slip) that it will close in profit.
If one shares at the peak and closes by the SL below the peak, one may incur losses even though the SL will be in the profitable area)))
I see, I gave an example with toppings to explain how one can make an imaginary deposit overload when there is no such an overload in reality. Of course, the risk of closing a position at a loss is always there when you open it.
For example, you consider 10% as an acceptable load on the deposit. Although the concept of "load" is stupid IMHO, it does not take into account how far from the entry point a stop is. It is more correct to evaluate the loss percentage when the SL is triggered.
1. 10% opened position, it went to profit, then you have moved the SL to the profit zone, there will be no losses in this position.
2. I filled in the same 10%, the risk is not higher than it was at the opening of the 1st position, but the load is already double (imaginary overload).
And there may be a lot of such additions or opening of positions on other pairs, when others are already in the profit zone; the deposit may be fully loaded. Of course it seldom happens in practice, but in theory. )))
goldtrader: На практике редко бывает конечно, но в теории вполне. )))
+1 ))
If we are talking about a single order then it is simple. SL is in the profit zone and it with high probability (minus the slip) guarantees a close with profit.
Real money is money that has been withdrawn from the trading account :). No chart will protect against risks, the greater the risks, the bigger the profit, but if possible, withdrawal should be obligatory.
As you can see, equity has decreased only in one part of the chart : D
Real money is money that has been withdrawn from the trading account :), because no chart will protect against risks, the greater the risks, the greater the profit, but withdrawing money, if possible, is a must
real money is money that has been withdrawn from the trading account :), since no chart will protect against risks, the bigger the risk, the bigger the profit, but you have to withdraw money if possible
As you can see, equity has decreased only in one part of the chart : D
For example, you consider 10% as an acceptable load on a deposit. Although the concept of "load" is a bad one, which does not take into account how far the stop is from the entry point. It is more correct to evaluate the loss percentage when the SL is triggered.
1. 10% opened position, it went to profit, then you have moved the SL to the profit zone, there will be no losses in this position.
2. I filled in the same 10%, the risk is not higher than it was at the opening of the 1st position, but the load is already double (imaginary overload).
And there may be a lot of such additions or opening of positions on other pairs, when others are already in the profit zone; the deposit may be fully loaded. Of course it seldom happens in practice, but in theory. )))