The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 99
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
This is the way it was given, but if you want, you can do it that way, but it doesn't change the point:
B = C(C) - [- P(C)] = C(C) - [- P(C)] = C(C) + P(C) when the total position is negative, i.e. B > C.
As you can see, the balance misrepresents the true position - misleading.
Why so zealously "pick on" this "balance"? What's wrong with "means"? And, in the particular case, balance = funds when all positions are closed. Cash (withdrawal) is possible even with a negative balance, as long as there are free funds in the form of unfixed profits. Now do you understand the insignificance of the balance?
Yusuf, what negative balance are you talking about? Where have you seen such a thing? A balance sheet is a strictly positive value. A negative balance equals debt.
You are never cashing out with an open position if the amount you are requesting is greater than the value:
min (Balance; Balance - Collateral + Equity)
Yusuf, what negative balance are you talking about? Where did you see such a thing? Balance is a strictly positive value. A negative balance equals debt.
You will never be able to cash out funds with an open position if the amount requested exceeds the value:
min (Balance; Balance - Deposit + Equity)
withdrawal by equity. If your balance is 10000 and your position loss is -9000, it is unlikely that you will be allowed to withdraw more than 1000- the position deposit)
This is exactly what I am talking about. But not by equity, but by the result: min (Balance; Balance - Deposit + Equity)
Yusuf, what negative balance are you talking about? Where did you see such a thing? Balance is a strictly positive value. A negative balance equals debt.
You will never be able to cash out funds with an open position if the amount requested exceeds the value:
min (Balance; Balance - Deposit + Equity)
Imagine a situation where a trader is working with SL but without TP. Only losing positions on the SL are closed and the trader does not close positive positions and the strategy is profitable. Is such a scenario possible? Of course it is. Then, at one point, the balance goes into deficit with positive funds. When closing the positive positions, the balance returns to the positive area.
This development is possible. But only until the moment you want to withdraw cash, you will make a withdrawal request. You will be asked to close positions (all or part of them) in order to lock in a balance that is sufficient to cover the funds requested for withdrawal.
It is possible for this to happen. But only until you have made a withdrawal request after wishing to withdraw cash. You will be asked to close positions (all or part of them) in order to lock in a balance that is sufficient to cover the funds requested for withdrawal.
Quite right, the trading dynamics are only reflected by the funds reacting to each tick, while the balance is held constant, as if nothing is happening to the trading results. This can be seen simply by observing the numbers at the bottom of the terminal as the price changes. Why do we need information which does not react to the market situation? Balance reflects results, i.e. trading history, but not its current state and dynamics.
Means (S) = Balance Sheet + Unfixed Profit (S);
Means(S) = Balance Sheet - Loss Unfixed (S);
B = C(C) - P(C) when the total position is positive, i.e. B < C;
B = C(C) - [- P(C)] = C(C) + U(C) when the total position is negative, i.e., B > C.
Perniciousness and catastrophicness of the balance orientation is evident from the last equation, because, oddly enough, the balance shows the sum of means and losses at the negative total position! Losses are added to funds and a virtual deposit is created in the form of a huge "balance sheet"
Loss = - Profit
it's not like that!