How to minimise the size of the stop and thereby the loss
locks don't solve the problem at all.
the only acceptable "advantage" of a loco, in my opinion, is a respite from a major unplanned move: to lock in and make a decision when the price stabilises
If you want to do it exactly as you've written, you need to add a line with the price.
In my opinion, everything does not look so complicated. You can always place a stop and the price will take it away if it's misplaced, so you end up with a realised loss that you can't take back.
Keeping a position with a fixed loss for a certain period opens the possibility to reopen it.
I know where to turn with the price, it is not my goal. I would like to hear some constructive criticism of this approach.
It doesn't look that complicated to me. You can always place a stop and the price will retrace that stop if it is in the right place, so you end up with a realized loss that you can never get back.
Keeping a position with a fixed loss for a certain period opens the possibility to reopen it.
I know where to turn with the price, it is not my goal. I would like to hear some constructive criticism of this approach.
Replace the lock with a regular stop, and at the moment when you open the lock, open a new position and you will get the same thing.
No, you need to know arithmetic up to and including the fifth grade.
Мне хотелось бы улышить конструктивную критику этого подхода.
It would be a good idea to learn how to use the search engine: it has been discussed and recalculated many times.
I would like to hear some constructive criticism of this approach.
You have already answered yourself constructively - by describing the problems of "this approach" in details.
This situation does not raise the question of loca ruining, but I would like to hear opinions on the viability of such a variant and competent writing of the function of opening and closing the opposite position.
on the other hand, you yourself have not figured out what you want to hear: a) you don't want to hear about a lock, but b) you want to hear about working with the opposite position.
p.s.. any variation on the viability is simple to check: open a real account and test your TS on real money. if it has held for a quarter, then you can work on the system in terms of improvement
You have already answered yourself constructively - by describing the problems with "this approach" in details.
on the other hand, you yourself haven't figured out what you want to hear: a) you don't want to hear about loca, but b) you want to hear about working with the opposite position.
p.s.. any variant on the viability is checked simply: open a real account and test your TS on real money. if it lasted a quarter, then you can work on the system in terms of improvement
By describing it I was hoping for hints on how to open and close (track) the opposite position at locale level, here is the difficulty. I don't know how to do it correctly yet.
Maybe I should use not the price but indicator valueswhen the level is crossed .
Maybe someone has come across such an indicator that would smooth out strong movements around the level.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
For example, the initial situation
There is a horizontal channel. We have conditions to trade inside the channel. There are situations where the price breaks the channel boundary and leaves by tearing the stops.
There are ways to use a lock in the form of a stop and freeze a large drawdown without closing the position, thus prolonging the time of achieving maximal drawdown.
It means to have additional possibility to return to the profit zone, in this case the gain in time.
I can imagine such a variant of implementation.
The difficulty is that the price can exceed the level of opening and closing of the opposite position many times within a short period of time. In this case, there will be costs in the form of spread or a small loss if the position is not closed in time. You can use a variable that will make it possible to close a position above/below the opening and still be in profit or even in a small profit.
I think we should have three stops to implement it
The first stop is a deviation from the channel where the opposite position will be opened. This stop would fix the losses with a lock.
You can try to adjust this if the price after one revolution goes back to the level where the opposite position would be opened.
"How many revolutions it takes to move the level can be set in the settings".
The second stop is a stop loss accumulator for costs of opening and closing the opposite position that may arise under unfavourable conditions.
The third stop is a maximum value where all open positions will be closed, equal to the normal stop of one open position.
The ideal situation would look like this.
We have an open Sell position from the upper channel. The price moves out of the channel and an opposite position "buy" is opened when the deviation is crossed by the price. We have a lock and a fixed stop.
The price returns to the area where the lock was opened, and the lock is closed at the opening price plus the value of the lock variable. After closing the opposite position, the deviation is close to the points set in the variable for the narrowing, now the deviation will be less when the price crosses again. The position is closed at breakeven, the price continues to fall, and the original position enters the profit zone and moves in the desired direction.
This is the situation where the price repeatedly touches the level of the open position.
We have an open Sell position from the upper channel. The price moves out of the channel and upon price crossing the deviation we open an opposite position Buy. We have a lock and a fixed stop.
The price returns to the area where the lock was opened, and the lock is closed at the opening price plus the value of the lock variable. After the opposite position is closed, the deviation is close to the points set in the variable for the narrowing, now the next crossing of the price deviation distance will be less. The position is closed at breakeven. The price reverses and starts to rise again, we open a Buy position again. The lock is opened. The conditions are repeated as long as the price crosses the deviation.
If the position cannot be closed on Breakeven under unfavourable conditions, the loss is added to the third stop loss. The stop loss is always checked and if the total of the first and second stops equals the third stop, all positions are closed.
If the position is closed in the small profit, points are deducted from the accumulator, thus making the second stop lower.
I think to implement this function, you need the following data
the first stop is a deviation from the channel by the number of points where the opposite position will be opened.
a variable Breakeven location, which is added to or subtracted from the initially open position.
a variable channel deviation narrowing, how many turns should be made for the first lock to be reduced.
The third stop is a failsafe stop, which is triggered if a lock does not work for some reason.
The second stop accumulator, writing to a file.
This situation doesn't raise the question of breaking a lock. I would like to know your opinion about viability of this variant and competent writing of functions to open and close the opposite position.