Avalanche - page 106
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
Рекомендую топикстартеру открыть на сайте любого ДЦ калькулятор трейдера... И купить учебник математики за 2-й класс...
При лоте 4 залог составляет 1079 долларов (при плече 1:500). А цена 1 пункта составляет 40 долларов
Все просто - при фиксации убытка в -40 пунктов лотом 4. Мы получаем обратно свои 1079 долларов. И теряем навсегда 40*40=1600 долларов. (спред в расчет не берем)
Расчеты из школьного курса арифметики...
Но видимо топикстартер проходил какое то другое обучение... Уже не первый раз замечаю, что с элементарной арифметикой у него серьезные проблемы.
This will always be the case in the Avalanche. If you exit on the border of the channel, the loss is closed only for orders on the opposite border of the channel, while the deposit is returned for ALL orders on BOTH borders. Therefore, up to a certain channel width (about 50 pips for EURUSD), the margin to be returned will always be larger than the loss to be fixed.
And now you and everyone else who is not too cheerful can read your own words:
I recommend the topicstarter to open trader calculator on the website of any DC... And buy a maths book for the 2nd grade...
But apparently the main author had some other training... This is not the first time I noticed that he has serious problems with elementary arithmetic.
Read the conditions of problem sever29 carefully. The loss is 40 pips by 4 lots, and the refundable deposit is 6 lots (all orders, 2 lots and 4 lots are closed). The refundable deposit of 6 lots is equal to $1620, while the loss of 4 lots is equal to $1600.
And in Avalanche, it will always be like that. When you exit on a channel boundary, the loss is only closed for orders on the opposite channel boundary, and the deposit is returned for ALL orders on BOTH boundaries. Therefore, up to a certain channel width (about 50 pips for EURUSD) the margin to be returned will always be larger than the loss to be fixed.
And now you have your own words for it:
What does the bail-in have to do with it? it's part of your money, it's not a profit to counter it with a loss. Divide the apple into three parts: 1. Your part(free funds) 2. Borrowed from a friend (margin for 4 lots or frozen your money) 3. Left it on the table unattended (risk, the money you are willing to lose when you enter the market with 4 lots in 40pp). After a while, you will have the first part of the hole, a friend returns the second part (freed up margin for closing a losing position) and the third part was eaten by a dog (your loss). As a result, you are left with two parts instead of three. And the third part equals a loss of $1,600. What are you counting the collateral (the second part of the apple) you had and returned to you? The loss is the main thing in the calculation.
And you spin the second part of the apple and boast about it to others.
Read the conditions of problem sever29 carefully. The loss is 40 pips by 4 lots, and the refundable deposit of 6 lots (all orders, 2 lots and 4 lots are closed). The refundable deposit of 6 lots is $1620 and the loss of 4 lots is $1600.
This is your money, why do you use it in your calculations? There is another figure - the loss of $1600 and take that amount away from the initial deposit.
Читайте внимательнее условия задачи sever29. Убыток равен 40 пунктам объемом 4 лота, а возвращается залог объемом 6 лотов (закрываются все ордера, объемом 2 лота и 4 лота). Возвращаемый залог объемом 6 лотов равен $1620, а убыток объемом 4 лота равен $1600.
И в "Лавине" так будет всегда. При выходе на границе канала убыток закрывается только для ордеров на противоположной границе канала, а залог возвращается для ВСЕХ ордеров на ОБОИХ границах. Поэтому до определенной ширины канала (для EURUSD примерно 50 пунктов) возвращаемые залоги будут всегда больше фиксируемого убытка.
А вот теперь вам и всем остальным не в меру веселым адресую ваши же слова:
25 again.
A deposit is a collateral and nothing more. It is not a profit or a loss, it is funds that you cannot dispose of.
If you get your deposit back, you are neither richer nor poorer, but you have more money at your disposal. But if, for example, the deposit is returned to you, because you have closed a BUY order (or several orders) and you re-open a BUY, then you are an idiot, because you have gifted the spread to your broker.
Еще раз - условием задачи было избежать маржин-кола при самых неблагоприятных условиях для "Лавины". При заданных параметрах и закрыв все ордера на границе канала, как я написал, вы с огромным запасом избежите маржин-кола. Задачу я решил.
Well done, JonKatana! 5 points in the diary.
Now look at the first page and compare it with what you wrote there in the first post. How long can you feed people with fantastic calculations alone!
How old are you, may I ask?
Well done, JonKatana! 5 points to the diary.
Now look at the first page and compare it with what you wrote there in the first post. How long can you feed people with fantastic calculations alone?!
How old are you, may I ask?
if on a scale of 100...
The only thing I was counting on was the fact that in between the plums the profit taken could be several times greater than the loss from the plums.
That's not a fact. That's what you SAY after running it in the tester with the parameters adjusted under greenhouse conditions.
The result of 6000 trades is to some extent believable, Mathematician for example always says that 1000 trades is enough for statistical validity.
Very suspiciously high number of deals in 2 years with 125 points channel width. And it's more correct to count not the number of deals but the number of cycles because all deals in a cycle are dependent.
I also mentioned several times that this system is for risk-takers. There are people who like to go to casinos :-)))
You are 100% right. The real and tester in this case may be very different and not for the better for the trader.
The tester will help to catch on the 2nd reversal of a losing position.
Gentlemen, am I the only one who feels like I'm in Ward 6? I'm beginning to have some doubts... maybe the head starter is counting correctly, and I'm the one who's crazy?
Even recalculated again on a calculator:). It's really possible to go crazy... from this kind of NLP.
:)That's not a fact. That's what you SAY after running in the tester with the parameters adjusted in greenhouse conditions.
Very suspiciously large number of deals in 2 years with a 125 points channel width. And it's more correct not to count the number of deals but the number of cycles, because all deals in a cycle are dependent.
You are 100% correct in this case. But real and tester in this case may be quite different and not for the better for a trader.
The DC will help to catch on the 2nd reversal of an unprofitable position.
And in your EA, how is the output produced?
And in your EA, how is the output produced?
In my case everything is converted into a single net position, which has a TP set at a distance specified by an external parameter.
In other words, in your version it looks like this:
- bystop is triggered, buy opens 0.01 with a certain TP.
- if the price moved against us and reached the opposite side of the channel, it opens a sell order at 0.08,
- OrderCloseBy is triggered immediately, and out of two locked positions, one Sell 0.07 is left,
- if the position reaches the opposite side of the channel, it is again reversed: buy 0.64 has triggered,
- OrderCloseBy is triggered immediately, and one buy of the two locked positions remains 0.57
The algorithm is the same but it saves on margin and spread.
In general, the net approach rules - locks are out.