Counter positions: self-deception or subtle tool? - page 16

New comment
 
Aleksander:
OK... give Specific examples - yours personally - where the sequence of trades - does NOT show identical results...
Already quoted an example 3 times. Read the thread.
 
I think we learned at school that the sum does not change depending on the order of the summands.... that 1+1+3=5 that 1+3+1=5 that 3+1+1=5 The sum is the same :)))
 
Andrei01:
I've already quoted the example three times. Read the thread.
I have to go through 150 posts again... it's boring, honestly... Do me a favor... give me an example of at least 5 deals where netting got in the way...
 
Aleksander:
I have to go through 150 posts again... it's a bore, really... Do me a favor... give me an example of at least 5 deals where netting got in the way...
It's as simple as that - when proving, they always forget to specify that with lots one can make profit from two possible ways, and with netting only one.
It is surprising that all calculations are reduced only to converting one strategy to another, forgetting that both strategies are possible at lots.
 
Andrei01:
Well, if it is only a way of displaying, then why bother with locs? Let them stay, and you keep your netting quietly in the background. then why prohibit locs if netting is supposed to remain the same?

Everything is right. It should be made clear, so that people are not confused: we first close a losing position and then open in the opposite direction, or we lock and close one position at an advantageous moment, and then, at an equally advantageous moment, close another one. Those are the two ways. Does anyone have a third way? (the variant of switching off the monitor with a trip to the hut should not be considered).
 

A lock is just a more convenient way to close a position. Well, for smart people who "never win back" there might be no lock, but for normal people who understand that two unplayed losses is a deep ass, and three is a total mess, there might be a lock.

 
Andrei01:
It's simple - the proof always forgets to specify that with lots you can make profit from two possible paths, and with netting you can only make one.
The surprising thing is that all the calculations are limited to converting one strategy to the other, forgetting that both strategies are possible at lots.

Fuck, not one into the other, but both allowing counter orders into one netting strategy
 
Mischek:

Shit, not one into the other, but both into one.
There's no way you can have both in the same one as one is a common non-interconnecting one.
 
Andrei01:
There is no way you can have both in one as one is a common netting.

explain why you can't do it?
 
Loss multiplication will never put the multiplier in the black. Netting, petting...
1...91011121314151617181920212223...29
New comment