If the position is not overvalued, then you calculate the level from which the price should move/reverse, and at the same time place a locking order in case you are mistaken. The price cannot rise / fall all the time, that's why you will still find the turning point (if you don't reload the account). If you are terribly sure, you can average as well, when you withdraw a profitable order, then it will take you 1/2 of the distance to get to Breakeven.
But this is a tedious business, it is better to avoid it.
If the position is not overvalued, then you calculate the level from which the price should move/reverse, and at the same time place a locking order in case you are mistaken. The price cannot rise / fall all the time, that's why you will still find the turning point (if you don't reload the account). If you are terribly sure, you can average as well, when you withdraw a profitable order, then it will take you 1/2 of the distance to get to Breakeven.
But this is a tedious business, it is better to avoid it.
I know it is tedious. That's why I want to know if there is an algorithm, so I don't have to suffer.
Такое выражение бытует на этом форуме. Я понимаю под этим приведение незафиксированного суммарного убытка создаваемого локом к зафиксированному безубытку.
I still don't get it. Can you give me an example of a breakdown? What we have before. What we have after.
// Not that I am dumb, just ambiguity in the interpretation of the term is possible. I want to accurately fix the subject of the conversation.
I still don't get it. Can you give me an example of a breakdown? What we have before. What we have after.
// Not that I am dumb, just ambiguity in the interpretation of the term is possible. I want to precisely fix the subject of the conversation.
I still don't get it. Can you give me an example of a breakdown? What we have before. What we have after.
// Not that I am dumb, just ambiguity in the interpretation of the term is possible. I want to precisely fix the subject of the conversation.
The mechanism of opening the lock was described above.
К примеру имеем несколько позиций бай и селл с совокупным лотом = 0 и совокупным незафиксированным убытком =-1000$. После каких то действий, включающих в себя открытие каких то дополнительных позиций и благодаря движению рынка совокупный незафиксированный убыток становится равным нулю. Все позиции закрываются. Лок разрулили.
Such actions can only be profitable trading. Loki has nothing to do with this. All positions in your example can be closed immediately. Better yet, don't open them at all :)
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
There are ardent supporters of loci. There are their opponents. Their difference seems to be that the supporters supposedly know how to destroy the locks, and their opponents do not know how.
Perhaps it's true - who got used to that and uses it. In my opinion, the ability to destroy gaps is equivalent to the ability to trade profitably. If you cannot trade profitably, losing lots will not help. If there were a 100% successful, formalized, history-proven algorithm for closing gaps, it would be a grail. I believe there is no such algorithm. Can anyone claim that such an algorithm exists?