"Trees don't grow to the sky" - 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
paukas: Шортить надо с текущих.
Shorting or beating is not important. What's important is what's recovering, krasafceg.....))))
The man with the beard was making a joke. Shorting means "flush".
But, damn, what a crock of shit this unsinkable man is! But if I were his investor, I would have left him back in May.
I'm reading his thread more carefully. It turns out that he's not a martin, but a dilution. In any case, he says so, that he does not use a martin.
And the last nearly-recovery happened only because he did not close loss-making positions (even at 78% drawdown) but simply waited for the reversal of pairs that also happened to be sharp.
The man with the beard was making a joke. Shorting means "flush".
But, damn, what a crock of shit this unsinkable man is! But if I were his investor, I would have left him back in May.
I'm reading his thread more carefully. It turns out that he's not a martin, but a dilution. In any case, he says so, that he does not use a martin.
The man with the beard was making a joke. Shorting means "flush".
But, damn, what a crock of shit this unsinkable man is! But if I were his investor, I would have left him back in May.
I'm reading his thread more carefully. It turns out that he's not a martin, but a dilution. In any case he says so, that he does not use a profit margin.
And the last nearly-recovery happened only because he did not close loss-making positions (even at 78% drawdown) but simply waited for the reversal of pairs that also happened to be sharp.
I don't know what dilution means, but his martin was like this: he lost a lot (par3) and in a big drawdown he bought another lot (par98) and in 50pp. everything is in profit.
Reading his thread more closely. It turns out he doesn't have a martin, but a dilution. At least that is what he says, he does not use martin.
And the last almost-recovery happened only because he did not close loss-making positions (even at 78% drawdown), but simply waited for the reversal of pairs, which also turned out to be sharp.
I have been doing this for a long time now and I'm not sure if I'm going to close his account on my own.
"he still did not close unprofitable positions (even at 78% drawdown) " - that's right - just after the minimum "nail" was seen in the Profitability and deposit loading tab - see. 1 on fig. how the further "soft"... :-) position dilution (averaging) with a gradual growth of deposit load, see Fig. 2 - there is a gradual closing of positions opened earlier in the profit, with a gradual decrease of deposit load, and as a consequence, with an overall exit in the profit.
At the moment the deposit load % is 5.3. So, there is still some powder in the gunpowder and some room to shoot... :-)))
I don't know what dilution is, but his martin was like this: he lost a lot (par3) and in a big drawdown he bought another lot (par98) and in 50pp. everything is in profit.
Dilution = averaging - i.e. in this case if the instrument (-s) move down, if we have already entered the market with the minimum start volume, we continue to build up our positions, increasing the volume of positions in the hope of a pullback and taking profit on the aggregate position, while the instrument price may not return to the level of the start order opening upwards, i.e. significantly lower.nevertheless the whole stack (averaging the price) of previously opened orders may be closed successively with the total profit - it depends on the schemes and volumes of averaging orders, i.e. the price pullback from the main move may be "not significant"...:-) nevertheless the exit will be in the profit.
"I don't agree here, because at the tip of the nail the DEP load was at 30% with its further decrease - see the picture in my previous post.
Investors do not seem to have a very clear understanding of deposit load: many of them say that a maximum load of 30% indicates that the MC was still "oh so far away". This is not entirely true - especially in this particular situation.
Deposit load = Deposit / Equity * 100%.
If you take, for example, a 1000-bucks deposit and open a 0.1 lot position on EURUSD, the initial deposit load will be approximately 14.3%.
How many pips would EURUSD have to run against the position for the load to reach 30%? Let's calculate: Deposit (143) / Equity * 100% = 30%. Hence, Equity = 143 * 100/30 = 477. So, the current loss equals 1000 - 477 = 523 pips!
And for 50%? 714 pips.
For 100% it is 857 pips.
For stop-out (500%) - 971 pips.
In other words, a deposit with 30% load has already jumped more than half of the distance to the stop-out. And if you also take into account the pace at which the "francophone" pairs were moving then...
Now, a rough estimate of what the reality was. At the minimum point, at 30% load, equity was equal to 463293 EUR. It means that the deposit was equal to 463293*0.3 = EUR 138988. If we assume that the position on USDCHF was opened, the deposit is approximately equal to 140,000 CHF(EURCHF pair almost came to the parity at the lowest point). This is a volume equal to 140 USDCHF lots, i.e. the point price is 1400 CHF ~ the same amount of EUR.
There was only a little over 300 pips before the collapse of the depo. And the EURCHF on August 9 went over 6 figures from the opening of the day to the lowest point.
I wonder if the Manager would have closed his positions on his own if the CHF had not stopped strengthening? Probably, yes... At a depo loading level of around 100%, i.e. at an equity of 140000 EUR.
I apologise for the nerdiness.
Dilution = averaging - i.e. in this case if the instrument (-s) move down, if we have entered the market upwards with a minimum start volume, then we continue to increase positions upwards, increasing the volume of positions, in the hope of a pullback and taking profit on the total position, while the instrument price may not return to the level of the start order opening upwards, i.e. much lower - but in this case, the price of the instrument may not go back upwards.nevertheless the whole pack (averaging the price) of previously opened orders may be closed successively with the total profit - it depends on the schemes and volumes of averaging orders, i.e. the price pullback from the main move may be "not significant"...:-) nevertheless the exit will be in the profit.
The "and his martin was so goes into minus a lot (par3) and already in a big drawdown bought another lot (par98) and after 50pp. all in the plus."- here I disagree, since at the tip of the nail the DEP loading was at 30% with its subsequent decrease - see the picture in my previous post.
I'm talking about the other Aussie case (over a year ago there was a discussion led by Nedra)
Ahhhh...:-), I see now.