The second sacred cow: "Grow profits, cut losses" - page 3
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
for intraday, the trendiness (or volatility, whatever you want to call it) is plentiful
Alas, no. Of the two methods ((1) - trade with the trend; (2) - trade against the trend) in general case the second one works better, if we use opening prices. I analysed 12 instruments at all timeframes. I got very interesting statistics on the percentage value of profitable deals.
P.S. I'll post it, but not here and not now.
This is a rule of thumb for dealing with psychology in haphazard trading. It is psychologically difficult to admit defeat and pay the price. Good article on the subject http://www.elitarium.ru/2006/10/04/belye_pjatna_v_nashem_myshlenii.html - all pertaining to trading, and this cow for dealing with the psychological effect of "Bottomless Barrel - Unrecoverable Losses" and "Double Accounting "
In system trading works for trend following systems
You see, sab1uk, unlike you, I said "nonsense" and proved it very well!
As for your comment about "trending" on intraday, you are talking about stochastic trends, which are of no practical use, as there is no way to detect them. I'm talking about "real" - deterministic trends that can and should be detected!
And I have "toy" trends?
i've been testing my new intraday trading robot for three weeks now.
my Expert Advisor sets a 10 pips loss (for the EURUSD variant) and does not limit the Take
in the draft the breakeven level is too small, so one deal went wrong (green line), but anyway, during the time of testing the profit with a drawdown is no more than this week's example
Well the first one, judging by the number of pages, is more interesting. And another thing: it's not just a belief, it's the presence of trends. In a trend, neighbouring bars show dependence.
2 sab1uk: and you still try to increase the moose a bit.
2 Neutron: thanks Sergey, I liked your arguments with charts. Because of the increased risks of flat (with your opposite paradigm) I would choose the first one, trend.
P.S. I wonder, if the market were a perfectly Wiener process, would there be such rules or not?
Well the first one, judging by the number of pages, is more interesting.
2 sab1uk: and you still try to increase the moose a bit.
If you put 20p, there's almost no difference.
>> before releasing it on the real, I will decide on the size
P.S. I wonder if the market were a perfectly Wiener process, would there be such rules or not?
Any rules are true for a Wiener process, just as none of them are true for a Wiener process!
Since the latter statement is repugnant to human nature, and the market is very close to a Wiener process, there are a huge number of rules for the forex market: "Elliot trading", "Fibo levels", "Gann fans", "Candlestick clusters", etc. Not surprisingly, some rules are mutually exclusive. This is a consequence of the poor predictability of market BPs and the desire to systematise everything, even a random process.
Or maybe not at all and not to let it grow. The TS should give an entry signal and an exit signal. SL and TR have nothing to do with TC at all - it's the insurance of server access breakdown.
I'll add to what I said: The exit signal should be an entry signal in the opposite direction. About SL and TR I absolutely agree.
>> Why is that? >> I categorically disagree.
Well, let's put it this way: the input is a strong signal, really strong so you can't go wrong. The entry is rare, but accurate.
And the output is a signal of medium strength, but qualitatively different than the input. This is to prevent the reverse movement from eating up too much of the paper profit. The purpose of the exit is different than the entry.
And the next entry is not necessarily immediate. Waiting again for a really strong signal to enter.
What do electronic engineers call this? The system's quadrature (the ratio of the length of time between pulses to the length of the pulse itself). It does not have to be close to one.
Why is that? I categorically disagree.
Well, let us put it this way: an input is a strong signal, really strong, not to make a mistake. The entry is rare, but accurate.
And the output is a signal of medium strength, but qualitatively different than the input. This is to prevent the reverse movement from eating up too much of the paper profit. The purpose of the exit is different than the entry.
And the next entry is not necessarily immediate. Waiting again for a really strong signal to enter.
What do electronic engineers call this? The system's quadrature (the ratio of the length of time between pulses to the length of the pulse itself). It does not have to be close to one.
These are false outputs. A normal system should ignore them. Ideally, of course. But something to strive for.
Again, it all depends on the t.f. you work for.