The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 375
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
I suspect that the Automaton is doing without stop-losses, like me :))) The illusion of infallibility of the chosen model. I can cite dozens of my smart trades, when it seems as if I've found it. And one (!) completely kills everything. You think: Well, I'm an asshole, why didn't I use a stop-loss ....? Then an inner voice says: "No, wait, someone is hunting for them... You haven't even considered this and that..." And so on to infinity. Fighting with yourself.
Stop-loss, as well as profit, as they are understood here on the forum, namely closing a trade at a certain level, is a very wrong choice. The deal should be closed, in any case, based on the specific situation. All sorts of stop profits can only be used in abnormal situations in the system.
Otherwise we obtain a complete nonsense - we analyze the entrance and set stop-losses, thus completely abandoning the analysis of the deal's progress.
Stop-loss, as well as profit, as they are understood here on the forum, namely closing the trade at a certain level, is a very wrong choice. The deal should be closed, in any case, based on the specific situation. All sorts of stop profits can only be used in abnormal situations in the system.
Otherwise we obtain a complete nonsense - we analyze entry, and setting stop-losses, thus completely refusing from the analysis of the deal's progress.
Yes, I think so too - and I still do not set either SL or TP. Exit from the trade - according to the algorithm. But I still have such a painful question "Maybe I am working without a stop loss? Such an ambiguous question...
Surely break-even is entirely achievable. But it is only possible with a deterministic approach.
If oneadopts the statistical-probabilistic approach, then break-even is fundamentally unattainable already by virtue of the approach itself.
The break-even requirement is detrimental
The order should open and close according to the algorithm, and the SL and TP are set and moved, covering some tube of movement, in case of force majeure (breakdown of communication, etc.).
TP - I agree, and SL should be triggered when the signal breaks, i.e. when you change your mind - there is no need to open anything else.
The break-even requirement is harmful
It depends on the approach taken. To state it unambiguously is not correct.
It depends on the approach taken. To state it unambiguously is not correct.
Yeah, whatever you say.
TP - I agree, and SL should be triggered when the signal breaks, i.e. when you change your mind - there is no need to open anything else.
The specific TP and SL relate to the open order, they disappear when the order is closed. For the next order opened according to the algorithm, there are special TPs and SLs which accompany the order until it is closed.
I think the SB branch has made a useful contribution to shaping the view of the problem.
It may well have contributed to the branch forming a diverse view of the problem. In solving the problem itself, not yet.
The age-old dilemma of "whether it rains or snows or loves it or not" is still valid.
But there is a solution to the problem. And it probably lies in the "power" of Trend or Tendency.
The phenomenon is still underestimated, and that is a fact!
In forming a diverse view of the problem - quite possibly. The problem is not yet solved.
The long-standing dilemma of "whether it rains or snows or loves it or not" is still valid.
But there is a solution to the problem. And it probably lies in the "power" of the Trend or the Trend.
The phenomenon has so far been underestimated, and that is a fact!
That is another problem. Solving this problem will allow us to get closer to solving the break-even problem.