Do you have any tactics for dealing with the loca? - page 30
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
You decide to go into business: you walk around the village and buy a bucket of potatoes for 1 rub 21, then another bucket for 1.22, then another for 1.23. You go to the market and see that people are willing to pay 1 rub 24 kopecks per bucket of potatoes. Which bucket of potatoes will you sell first? And if you have already emptied it into a sack? And what's the difference between potatoes and potatoes that you want to sell exactly the first bucket?
he just wants to close the equivalent of 300 points like in mt4.
He just wants to close the equivalent of 300 pips as in mt4
Easy! Just go out and borrow. By "closing the first trade", you (he) increases your balance and gets cash in your pocket, but you lose the equity of your open positions, i.e. you borrow from your own equity. Correspondingly, the total equity of the trading account plus the cash in your pocket does not change. Regardless of which trade was closed first. The money in the pocket may seem positive temporarily, but time will bear fruit and the debts will have to be paid, and sooner or later, the balance will meet equity.
Well, Maestro Niroba showed us live what masturbation with growing balance at the expense of equity drawdown may lead to.
Easy! Just go out and borrow. By "closing the first trade", you (he) increases your balance and gets cash in your pocket, but you lose the equity of your open positions, i.e. you borrow from your own equity. Correspondingly, the total equity of the trading account plus the cash in your pocket does not change. Regardless of which trade was closed first. The money in the pocket may seem positive temporarily, but time will bear fruit and the debts will have to be paid, and sooner or later, the balance will meet equity.
Maestro Niroba showed us what happens as a result of onanalysis with balance increase as a result of equity drawdown.
Yeah, I get it, that's what I said yesterday.
Mischek 07.06.2010 02:13
edit | delete
All this rubbish with lots is not even in mathematics but in the lack of understanding of what happens theoretically when you press "close an order".
In the market there's no "close", there's either "buy" or "sell".
Just like with a balance, which is not a balance at all.
In general, meta quotas are to blame)
Yeah, I get that, I told you yesterday.
Got into a bit of a game here, there's a loch with a moose in it. Who can tell me how to break it up ? Are there tactics?
I have a tactic, however, I also have an indicator (the attached file is an advertisement for an indicator) that allows me to calculate reversal points with a high probability. Therefore, I simply hold the lock until the reversal. If the price changes again - again lock, but closer to the locked order. In intervals I trade and close all positions when I have covered the loss from the first order.
Netting is different.
We open three positions:
- at 16:00 at 1.2100 1 lot,
- at 17:00 at 1.2200 1 lot,
- at 18:00 1.2300 1 lot.
The current price is 1.2400.
Netting sees everything as a single position of 3 lots with Breakeven price of 1.2200. Covering part of the position (1 lot) will bring a profit of 1.2400 - 1.2200 = 200 pips.
And I want to cover the very first open and only it (the profit should be 300 = 1.2400 - 1.2100, as in the good old MT4 without netting). This is not just my whim, but part of my system.
Who will teach me how to do the same in netting? And who will tell me afterwards that everything we did in MT4 can be done in a netting accounting system?
Figured it out this morning and with a clear head.
In fact, everything is much easier, i.e. the catch is in the problem: namely, we need to specify which position to cover, while in fact we could not specify this point and limit ourselves to the size of the covered position in lots.
On a non-matching platform it does not matter which of the open positions we cover, if their volume is the same. As the profit/loss on the closed position will only change the balance, but will not influence equity at the current price and the next price movement, the change in equity will also be absolutely the same. After all, the product of the volume of remaining open positions by the change in price in pips is taken into account in the next price change. Since all three positions are equal in volume, respectively, closing any of them at some price will be equivalent to closing any other one at the same price.
Therefore the correct answer is to cover the same volume in netting as in non-netting, i.e. 1 lot. Because covering some volume in netting is fully equivalent to covering the same volume in any open non-netting position. The difference will only be reflected in the balance. And balance is nothing, equity is everything.
I figured it out this morning and with a clear head.
Actually it is much easier, i.e. the catch is in the problem: namely, we need to specify which position to cover, although in fact we do not need to specify this point but limit ourselves to the size of the covered position in lots.
On a non-matching platform it does not matter which of the open positions we cover, if their volume is the same. As the profit/loss on the closed position will only change the balance, but will not influence equity at the current price and the next price movement, the change in equity will also be absolutely the same. The product of the volume of remaining open positions by the change of price in pips is taken into account in the next price change. Since all three positions are equal in volume, respectively, closing any of them at some price will be equivalent to closing any other one at the same price.
Therefore the correct answer is to cover the same volume in netting as in non-netting, i.e. 1 lot. Because covering some volume in netting is fully equivalent to covering the same volume in any open non-netting position. The difference will only be reflected in the balance. And balance is nothing, equity is everything.
So he needs 300 points of profit to balance it out!
If I understand what Alexei wants.
He probably knows about balance and equity as well as we do.
So he needs 300 points of profit to balance it out!
Do I need it?
I'd rather think how to increase equity by N pips. And what's on the balance sheet is up to the nerds to figure out.
This is bullshit.
to close the first time -sell 1.5 lots
second time -cell 1 lot
the third time, sell 0.5 lots.
This is because everything was opened with the same lots.
if they are different then there is a bit more arithmetic
In your example, to start with you have to calculate which part of the position must be closed, to fix the required profit on the balance... When you have 10 or more positions, the calculation is not so easy... Especially if there is no possibility to apply software tools. My approach is simple and does not require any calculations. But it may contradict the rules of DC on time of execution....
Netting system is a significant limitation for TC...
Reshetov:
....A balance is nothing, equity is everything.
You keep repeating the same thing... My example doesn't convince you?
Balance increased, equity increased, loss stayed almost the same....