Once again, about the lokas. - page 4
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
Yes, there is a way to trade on M1-5 (stay breakeven) sliding stop with 10-20 pips distance.
Lock on a martin may be necessary, otherwise unnecessary
Lock on martin may be necessary, otherwise unnecessary.
What kind of a martin is it when you double in the casino? (there was a case of trying a break-even strategy in a casino with almost no...)I will insert my 5 kopecks for the lock, but rather for hedging
The situation look at the chart Eurobucks - closing at 1.3408 - Monday I think will start with a gap of 50 points after such Friday's movement
Many will say it was necessary to close positions for Friday and if it is a pity to cut a settlement, we put a hedge and a gap will not cost us. +
It's at trader's discretion whether to place a buy or a sell,
or you can put a sell bxfrank - a hedge!
I'm for hedging and losing positions - but there is no algorithm - there is pure mathematics here
and when it's solid, it gets very boring.
If I'm up against the wind and believe it's not too strong, I try to fold immediately, then I count and put both of them at breakeven.
it's better 0 than - and then, if there is time, I double up with the current and economize on the spread by counter-closing.
I can also go for a ride with positive spoops ....
...it's all maths.
and when it's all math, it gets very boring...
Boring for us, but for mathematicians it's poetry. "He became a poet, he lacked imagination to be a mathematician."
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 lots 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?
Such an algorithm exists. The risks are minimal, but so are the profits. No more than 20-30% per annum on one currency pair. Even if you increase the number of currency pairs to 10-20, it will not be worth it (your time, effort), if your initial deposit is less than 10,000. Mine is 10 times less, so it is shelved for now. I will not give an example of the algorithm, I will not prove anything, think of it as rubbish and bluster.
Есть ярые сторнники локов. Есть их противники. Их отличие видимо в том,что сторонники якобы умеют разруливать локи, а их противники не умеют.
Возможно это и так - кто к чему привык тот тем и пользуется. На мой взгляд умение разруливать локи эквивалентно умению прибыльно торговать. И если умения прибыльно торговать нет, то локи не помогут. Если бы был 100% успешный, формализованный, проверенный на истории алгоритм разруливания локов, то это был бы грааль. Я считаю, что такого алгоритма нет. Может ли кто-нибудь заявить, что такой алгоритм существует?
there is such an algorithm!
Moreover, it is implemented by MQL4 developers in the OrderCloseBy() function.
The paradox is that on a domestic level, almost everyone uses locs. You have bought goods on credit or taken out a loan. These are all examples of loca. When you receive goods, services or money, you commit to repay the money over time, i.e. you minimise the risk to your budget.
Lock is the deferred taking of a profit or loss.
What does this mean? We urgently borrow money that we have not yet earned and we have yet to pay it back. In everyday life, we pay back borrowed money in instalments. Hence the conclusion: the volume of positions should be divided into several parts (the more of them, the safer for the deposit) in order to minimize the risks. You should close a position, when the price is outside a lock, and at least it has the same width .
For example, we got a losing position for 100 points, and the volume is 10 lots. We have 10 attempts to close the position. The price is outside the position and repeats its width - 100 points. We fix profit of 1 lot (+100 points). Loss position 1 lot gives -200 p.
2 options:
1. Price reversed, went through 100 pips - half of the distance to the opening price of the losing position. We fix the losing position in the volume of 1 lot. Total: 100 - 100 = 0 p.
2. The trend continues. The price has already passed 200 lots. We fix the profit of 1 lot (+200 p). A loss position of 2 lots gives -300 p. The price reversed, passed 150 p - half of the distance to the opening price of the loss position. We fix the losing position in the volume of 2 lots. Total: 100 + 200 - 2*150 = 0 p
....
If the Trend continues and reaches the 1000 pips level, we fix the last profitable position in 1 lot and place the lot. Equity loss will increase 4.5 times. The width of the lock is 1100 p. As soon as the price moves 100 p more in either direction, we set a new lock.
If the lock is positive, we set the same rules.
The price is outside of the position and repeats its width - 100 points. Fix profit of 1 lot (+200 points). Loss position 1 lot gives -100 p.
2 options:
1. Price reversed, went 50 pips - half of the distance to the opening price of the losing position. We fix the losing position in the volume of 1 lot. Total: 200 - 50 = 150 p.
2. The trend continues. The price has already passed 200 lots. We fix the profit of 1 lot (+300 p). A loss position of 2 lots gives -200 p. The price reversed, passed 100 p - half of the distance to the opening price of the loss position. We fix the losing position in the volume of 2 lots. Total: 200 + 300 - 2*100 = 300 points