Ring - page 24

New comment
 
Gans-deGlucker:
But think about it, isn't it easier to replace the trade of one turbulent instrument with the trade of the same turbulent instrument, but 7 times smaller.


I don't understand this phrase.

It seems to me that the interest lies in the fact that pairs do not always move strictly synchronously.

But it's true that you can go into deep drawdowns.

 
real-trader:


I am duplicating my notes instead of charts:

-5.5 (loss on total opening spread),

-13,

-30,

+2,

+18,

+23,

+36,

+56,

Only the extreme values were recorded. Didn't record any dates. Now +14. The micro-ring was opened on May 7; it is clear that the equities chart of the ring does not practically coincide with the pound chart. The moment of ring opening is marked on the screenshot.

There is a correlation, only in reverse, look at the graph and your records. And Gans-deGlucker's post : " Trying to explain on my fingers (the topic starter by the way never managed to do it for me) ......" explains extremely well why. And the top starter trades the same, only a more sophisticated synthetic tool, imho of course.

 
gss:


I do not understand this phrase.

It seems to me that the interest lies in the fact that pairs do not always move strictly synchronously.

But it is true, you can also go into deep drawdowns.

So what's the difference from normal trading of a normal instrument? :) Is it that the loss is supposedly small and holds more or less constant most of the time? That's self-defeating. They really can slide in asynchronously. It's just trading, only with a smaller lot. Everything else is the same.
 
Gans-deGlucker:
So, what's the difference from the usual trading of an ordinary instrument? :) In that supposedly the loss is small and holds more or less constant most of the time? It's a self-deception. It's just trading, only with a smaller lot. Everything else is the same.


No, it's not that. We don't know for sure where the position will be opened, and if there are manyopen positions, then maybe we can "guess".

This is not my logic, but the logic of trading according to this algorithm.

 
gss:


No, it's not that. We don't know for sure where the position will be opened, and if there are many open positions, we may be able to "guess".

It's not my logic, it's the logic of trading with this algorithm.

Well, we open them at the same time. It would be logical to simply close them simultaneously. When I was running such a tactic, that's exactly what I did. This is the method of closing a profitable deal (one of them) and further break this hyperlock :). It's essentially the same guessing game.
 
Gans-deGlucker:
Well, we open them at the same time. It would be logical to just close them at the same time. When I was running such a tactic, that's exactly what I did. This is the method of closing a profitable deal (one of them) and further break this hyperlock :). It's essentially the same guessing game.
Normal strategy (like scalping) ring of 3 pairs one can say break-even. I'm not trading now...(ring) .... Not very profitable. You lock in the ring at 20pp and trade (looks like a 3 pair lock). Good luck.
 
Gans-deGlucker:

The pound, on the other hand, is a bit of a mess. The £1,625 was under-sold to us. All currencies have different values, and the deposit (aka wallet) - it is one and it also has its own measurement currency. And it turns out that these 1625 pounds (or 0.016 of a lot) we need to add to make a full correction. Then the ring will close completely, but it will have absolutely no meaning, a net loss of 3 spreads. Bottom line - if you open a position for 0.016 lots (theoretically) instead of the specified pairs, then

- get the same result;

- save 3 spreads.

So the logical question arises: does this trading make sense? Instead of 1 pair we trade several ones, the essence of trading does not change. Instead of 0.1 lot we trade 0.016 lots (in this example) and are happy that the account is not losing, and sometimes we even gain. Decrease your trade 10 times and it will be the same. :)


So you are saying that it is possible to make a closed and balanced ring of 3 or more pairs that is not unbalanced?

If I understood you correctly, then please make a ring of 3 pairs with lots, I want to check in practice.

 
real-trader:


So you are saying that it is possible to make a closed and balanced ring of 3 or more pairs that won't unbalance?

If I understand you correctly, would you be kind enough to make a ring of 3 pairs with lots indicated, I would like to check in practice.


This is not possible. At each discrete moment of time the sum (difference) of all pairs (3.....100) will be different.

There are many different reasons for this, although it is possible that a zero balance may be reached in the short term.

But that is the exception.

 
gss:


...And at some point there will be some profit on all positions, at which point all positions will be closed.

But it is true that you can go deep into deficit.


The ring while hanging really "vibrates" on units of dollars, but these fluctuations never (in the observable period by me) overlap -21 spread.




 
gss:


This is not possible.At each discrete moment of time the sum (difference) of all pairs(3.....100) will be different.

There are many different reasons for this.Although it is possible that zero balance will be achieved in the short term.

But this is the exception.

that's right, because they will be influenced by currencies not accounted for in the ring

and the more of them, the more stable the Ring is... I have 7 of them i.e. 21 trades

1...171819202122232425262728293031...71
New comment