The absurdity of a stop loss - page 4
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.e. is the stop determined on the basis of acceptable losses? Then of course you don't need it :) That's what the position size is for.
I've never met a salesman who, when buying an item, says: "I'm prepared to lose 3% of it", but he'll sell it at almost the purchase price (but not at a loss), if the product is not in demand.
And if it's not a riddle...
What's the mystery? One way it passes and the other way it doesn't.
It's a diode, and the rectifier is a bridge of 4 diodes, and there's no stoploss in its circuit )
No, really, it's a desire to close a position at a loss
ZS: by placing a stop we are not limiting our losses, we are specifying the price at which we are willing to close the position at a loss.
There are many types of Stop Losses:
- Stop Loss as part of a trading system is absurd and nonsense. In this case, there are variants to replace it with something more profitable for our deposit.
- Stop Loss as a means of preserving the deposit and limiting one-time losses, or losses over a period of time. This is necessary, otherwise the role of stop-loss will be performed by MK.
The difference between these two stoplosses is enormous, just a chasm. But to understand it you need some experience in the practical real trading.
I have never met a salesman who, when buying a product, says: "I'm prepared to lose 3% on this", but he will sell out at almost the purchase price (but not at a loss) if the product is not in demand.
How do they go broke if they're always selling at a profit? :)
It's a diode, and the rectifier is a bridge of 4 diodes, and there's no stoploss in its circuit.)
That's right. A diode. That's a stop loss.
What do you mean by that, if a stop loss is the price at which the trader is willing to close the position at a loss?
this is exactly where the basic misconception lies
which leads to the fact that
This begs the question, is stop hunting really a myth?
"stop hunting" is NOT a myth, but a goal
it is possible to close some positions at a loss even at the total profit of all positions
then your definition of a stop is not entirely correct
how do they go broke if they're always trading at a profit? :)
The costs are not recouped by the revenues, so they go bankrupt. )
ZS: we're talking about stops and you're already talking about a margin call ))))
I have never met a salesman who, when buying a product, says: "I'm prepared to lose 3% on this," but he will sell out at almost the purchase price (but not at a loss) if the product is not in demand.
My wife sells flowers and by buying them she is risking almost the entire purchase sum, a week without sales and the flowers will end up in the trash, but that's just an example...
I have a wife who sells flowers, by buying them she risks practically the entire amount of the purchase, a week without sales and the flowers will end up in the trash, but that's just for example...
and have there been any cases?
And also at what price does she buy them and at what price does she sell them?
ZS: Has she ever said that, here I will buy at 50 p per piece, if they will not take, then sell for 25 for a bouquet of three flowers?