Once again, about the lokas. - page 2

New comment
 
Fibo писал(а) >>


let's say you sold at 1.34, instead of a stop, you put a bystop at 1.35. If the stop triggered, you have a 100 pips loss and an unfixed "lock". The appeal of this feature is that there is a possibility to wait till the level, because no matter how many points pass, even 1000, even 2000, until you "open the lock" the loss will be 100 points.
The mechanism of opening of the lock is described above.


So, what is the difference between this and the variant when we catch a loss (close a position instead of opening a lock) and reach the same place where the "opening lock" should be?
The only difference is that we have to pay a second spread when locking and we can hide the loss on the balance curve. For example, from an inexperienced investor.

 
zhuki писал(а) >>
Theoretically it is possible to dilute him, but it is equivalent to the fact that you just earn that amount, and then close the lock with a loss .


+1

 

These are the words of an already experienced tawarish. What kind of breakdowns? Which is more appropriate to call hedging, because it is a protection against a margin call.
In order to get out of a fixed -100, you essentially need to earn these 100, so you have to ask why lock - just earn and that's it.

 
goldtrader писал(а) >>


And what is the difference from the variant when we fix the loss (we close the position instead of opening a locking position) and then earn at the same place where the lock was supposed to be opened?
The only difference is that we have to pay a second spread when locking and we can hide the loss on the balance curve. For example from an inexperienced investor.


difference:
1. the margin is not increased (no margin on a reverse order is taken). there are people who trade almost half a dept and when closing losses, you cannot open a second one of the same kind.
2. when closing a 100-point gap, the averaging needs only 50 points to breakeven.
3. if you see the end of the movement, you may close both orders in the +.
And finally:
4. it is often psychologically difficult to fix losses.
 
Lock is useful(!) in at least two cases. But it is not directly profitable. In this situation, it is better to close than to lock :)
 
MetaDriver писал(а) >>

Such actions can only be profitable trading. Loki has nothing to do with this. All positions in your example can be closed immediately. Or better not to open them at all :)


These are typical arguments of lock opponents, who think that lock is an unnecessary mess. I'm not a supporter of locks either, but I might join them if they provide a successful algorithm. In some cases the lock is easy to break when the market moves in a favorable direction. For example, the price moved up above the buy position with the highest buy price - we close buy positions, then the price turns around and moves below the sell position with the lowest price - we close all the sell positions.
But this is a special case and I am interested in if there is a general algorithm.
 
Some DCs don't charge a lock deposit, I think it's a lure. And this can be used under certain conditions. It's true that swaps drip in minus.
I used to hold lots for 2-3 months and it was very expensive. In order to exit without taking additional positions, the price should first go out of the Loko Borders and then you may do something.
When the price is outside it's easier to create tactics. I did it by 300 pips. It's very difficult and you don't know what rules you more than greed. If you've got a 30-50 pips lock you may get an automatic lock, the main thing is patience. But I want to reiterate once again that it's a stupid idea and you'd better not take it so far. If you can't take a loss psychologically it's better to take an average loss, sometimes it's very effective and it's used by a lot of people.
 
the expression "breaking the locks " is so funny)) the image of the new russians in the 90s, who were breaking everything... including the locks probably :-)
 
khorosh >>:


Вот это типичные доводы противников локов, которые считают, что лок это лишний геморой. Я тоже не сторонник локов, но мог бы к ним примкнуть, если бы они предоставили алгоритм успешного разруливания. В некоторых случаях лок разруливается при благоприятном движении рынка легко. Например, (А) цена поднялась над позицией бай имеющей наибольшую цену из всех позиций бай - закрываем позиции бай, после этого (Б) цена развернулась и опустилась ниже позиции селл с самой низкой ценой - закрываем все позиции селл.
Но это частный случай, а меня интересует есть ли какой то общий алгоритм.

In this particular case, the general algorithm is as follows - we open a Sell position at point A, which we then close at point B. And that's it.

And before that, instead of locking up, we just close down. It may not be as romantic, but the romance can be found elsewhere. Like a candlelit dinner for a good deal.

// This substitution, though, does not guarantee the absence of pain in the future.

// (thoughtfully): ... Perhaps there is a downside to romance...?

;)

 
neoclassic писал(а) >>
the expression "breaking the locks " is so funny)) the image of the new russians in the 90s who were breaking everything... including the locks probably :-)


You are a little confused, those guys were "breaking up". In this case, "ruhilivanie" is the correct word.

123456789...61
New comment