Counter positions: self-deception or subtle tool? - page 3

New comment
 
Swetten:


4. At point 2 sell (a lock occurs)

5. At point 3 buy

6. At point4 sell (a lock occurs)

7. At the point 5 buy


Do you close (fix profit) in point 2 in point 3 buy?

Similarly point 4?

 
Swetten:
The reality is: do such locks have a right to life, or can they be successfully replaced by netting?
Such locks have a right to life if... There is clarity of purpose and hope that this clarity is not obscured by fog. As I see it, a lock may be used for solving a bad situation, so as not to make a panic exit with a loss at once and to allow waiting and thinking or for clarity, which is theoretical. There is also an option with a lot of capital and infinitely long open positions, but let's leave it out.
 
Tantrik:

Do you close a sell at point 2 (take a profit) at point 3 buy?

Similarly point 4?


Right.
 
Swetten:

Right.

There, there - read my first post!!! you don't have any locks - two trending TS on different timeframes.
 
Tantrik:

There, there - read my first post!!! you don't have any locks - two trending TS on different timeframes.

The account is the same. The account does not distinguish between TFs.
 
Swetten:

Give me the figures.

Numbers of what?

To prove it you first have to get acquainted with the axioms of geometry, e.g. you can only draw one line through two points to connect them by the shortest distance - that means that all other lines passing through these two points will have longer total distances.

From this even a schoolboy can draw a simple conclusion that a longer path between two points always has a greater distance (in this case profit). :)

Pyssy: if you want to prove the disadvantages of netting, you should not do it that way.

 
In general, locks are useless, but if the system is independent, and orders in different directions are closed in the positive, then it is better to leave it that way, so as not to confuse the system with their algorithms, let them lock.
 
Techno:
in general, locks are useless.

It's easy to understand that you're wrong.

Open two counter orders and close each of them when they are in the plus (i.e. at different times). Then you'll get a profit proportional to the pips of each order, and when netting you will sit with nada (or in deficit considering the spread).

 
Andrei01:

Figures for what?

For proof, first get acquainted with the axioms of geometry, e.g. you can only draw one line through two points to connect them by the shortest possible distance - that means that all other lines passing through these two points will have longer total segments.

From this even a schoolboy can draw a simple conclusion that a longer path between two points always has a greater distance (in this case profit). :)

I don't care - I have concrete figures, not axioms.

Pyssy: if you want to prove the disadvantages of netting, you should not do it that way.

Show us how it works. Show us a miracle.

 

Swetten:

So show us -- show us how it's done. Show us a miracle.

The simplest example is the counter-orders above.
12345678910...29
New comment