Avalanche - page 424
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
"Avalanche 2".
1) Choose the minimum corridor width (e.g. 20 points). Increase it by 4 times (20 x 4 = 80 pips in the example) - this will be the working width of the corridor "Avalanche2". This is the distance from the outside corridor borders to the outside, to make the price reach breakeven. Its further movement in the same direction will bring profit.
2) We open any market order (for example Buy) with an initial lot (0.10 in the example). If the price moves in the profitable direction - we fix profit and re-open the order.
3) If the price moves in an unprofitable direction, we place a pending order of the opposite direction (Sell Stop in the example) at a distance of the corridor width (80 points) with a volume twice as big as that of the first order (0.20 for this example). If the price keeps moving in the direction of the second order, opens it, passes from its position one more working width of the corridor (80 points) and goes further, we again fix profit.
4) If the price does not pass the second order, but turns around to the first order, we place a pending order (Buy Stop, in the example) at HALF of the bandwidth (40 points) with the same volume as the second order (0.20 in the example). If the price moves in the same direction, we fix profit after passing the Breakeven level.
5) If the price, having opened the third order, turns around, without reaching the Breakeven level, at a distance of FOUR of the working width of the corridor from the last order (20 points) an opposite direction pending order (Sell Stop) is placed with a volume of 0.24 in the example.
6) Subsequent orders are placed on the boundaries of the formed minimum corridor (20 points wide).
The chain of volumes for the first seven orders: 0.10 - 0.20 - 0.20 - 0.24 - 0.28 - 0.30 - 0.35...
Comparison of volumes with a classic "Avalanche": 0.10 - 0.20 - 0.30 - 0.60 - 1.20 - 2.40 - 4.80...
The advantage of "Avalanche 2" over classic "Avalanche" is a very slow increase in order volumes, which requires much less (several times) initial capital. This results in a drastic reduction of risks related to order volume expansion with a big number of reversals - in "Avalanche2" it is almost irrelevant.
"Avalanche 2" is break-even, like the classic "Avalanche" - the deposit grows constantly, it is impossible to close all orders while following the algorithm with getting a loss.
JonKatana, you have described the second Avalanche in much detail. But still there are a lot of questions during formalization...
Could you please fill in the table attached in the file.
I.e. we need specific levels from the proposed starting price. I'll make a test model, let's run it and everything will fall into place, because I'm really tired of the p...s.
Z.U. In principle, anyone also can fill in, add something, etc.. (as he imagines it).
Are you going to trade for 10 years without withdrawal? Strange, I withdraw like thatas soon as the initial deposit is doubled. The important thing is that the funds withdrawn are significantly higher than the funds lost. As for past and future success, it's not just about avalanche. Success in the past does not guarantee it in the future for any expert.
The rules of good manners say: "If you do not actually perform the actions you declare, it is more correct to use the following turns of phrase:
- maybe ... ;
- maybe should do ... ;
- I would really like to ( e.g. double the deposit) .... ;
- I think ... ;
- I think ... ;
etc.
...........................
P.S. As always, the purpose of my statement is to prevent your reputation as an honest man from falling.
But, why do you constantly oppose me?
;-))
Interesting observation.
Why is this thread so popular?
Because this primitive idea is understood by every fool.
And assholes take advantage of it.
Interesting observation.
Why is this thread so popular?
Because this primitive idea is understood by every fool.
And assholes take advantage of it.
It's not clear - what "it" (are some assholes using?) :-)
Interesting observation.
Why is this thread so popular?
Because this primitive idea is understood by every fool.
And assholes take advantage of it.
So. There is a class of "Fools" who understood the "idea". The rest, accordingly, belong to the class of "Assholes" who take advantage of it....
Well, why are you like that?
I, for example, do not understand the idea (at least I have not grasped it in bones what would make me say so), so I do not belong to the "Idiots".
But I don't really want to hang out at the Goats either (although it's still better than the reverse).
..................
Isn't it just primitivism to divide everything into white and black?
..................
You should try filling in the table....
Immediately the halftones will begin to show. ))
So. There is a class of "Fools" who get the "idea". The rest of us, accordingly, belong to the class of "Assholes" who take advantage of it....
It seemsto me that it's simpler than that. The "goats" are the leaders of the "catching" class.
And the beast runs after the catcher.
There's a reason it's written.
"Separate the goats from the lambs."
Then everything becomes clearer.
And if anyone else wants toget caught?
They'realways welcome...
They're welcome here and at any DC.
;)
So. There is a class of "Fools" who get the "idea". The rest of us, accordingly, belong to the class of "Assholes" who take advantage of it....
Well, why are you like that?
I, for example, do not understand the idea (at least I have not grasped it in bones, what would make me say so), so I do not belong to the "Idiots".
But I don't really want to hang out in the Goats either (though it's still better than the reverse).
..................
Doesn't it seem primitivist to divide everything into white and black?
..................
You should try filling in the table....
Immediately the halftones would start to show. ))
Yes, indeed, a competent answer. Got it now, thank you.
Sorento and Aleksander's obscene posts have been deleted. Warning to both.
hmmm ? what's my memory :) which word was Uncensored ? (rhetorical question) ... Dahl did NOT collect such words :) - http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/232598
we ↓↓↓↓ no more :)
↓↓↓