Why do you limit the maximum drawdown on the account? - page 19
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 get the impression that this is a "buy and hold" strategy - an insane strategy to lure suckers into funds.
You seem to hear about the stops and the risk here.
If we go by the subject.
1. We put 100 quid in the deposit.
2. we buy for all 100, but with a stop of x%.
3a. Win 100 quid and refill. Absolutely, the risk has increased, but in percentage terms it is constant.
3b. we lose to 100 - x%, not all 100%!
Drawdown is bullshit. When the forum shows the account balance and find a drawdown of more than the original depo, then consider the TS plum. man earned 100 times the depo, and then sagged the amount of the original depo. So?
I see it as normal: we open the deposit and buy 100% of it. But we set a SL with trailing profit and exit at pullback. We scale down the position. Absolutely the risk grows and relatively it does not. Withdrawing or investing is another song.
The amount of risk from experience. On the books 2% is a very low risk. For my TS from 10 to 20% - I get it from the tester. Loading the depo through the share up to 100%.
The size of the risk from experience. For the books 2% is a very low risk. For my TS from 10 to 20% - I get it from the tester. Loading of the depo by refilling up to 100%.
But some people think you have to have a billion quid in your account to trade 0.01 lots to be sure)
And some people think that having a billion is not necessary to trade.
Name me any business where 100% of the capacity is not used:
Suppose you have a factory that produces 1,000 trousers. Is that how it works? I'm not aware of that. As long as there are sales, they produce, if there are no sales, they reduce production or stop it. But a normally operating company always works at 100%.
There is another issue that gets confused here. A man puts money into a depot and it is his last (or borrowed????), i.e. it is all his assets. Why discuss this?
Cool system, since you introduced such risks))))
Has nothing to do with the system. Questioned the 2% book truth and ran it through a tester and was surprised to see this result. All confirmed by real. But I don't use SL - the TS should give a meaningful condition to exit a pose, e.g. reversal of a pose.
Questioned the book's 2% truth and ran it through the tester and was surprised to see this result. All confirmed by the real. But I don't use SL - TS should give a meaningful condition to exit a pose, e.g. reversal of a pose.
Yes book truths such are conditioned only by the generalized statistics of great-grandfathers trading.
Do you use TA?
No. A naive silly girl is a naive silly girl.)
Oh, I see, you've decided to call me names. You'd better have a fight with Alexander - he's in a scolding mood.
He won't be able to handle me. He's old, he's drunk and stoned, and spoiled by girls. All the money and casinos drove him crazy. BOOA-GA-GA.
What can you do, there's only so much chatter in the thread, just going from nothing to nothing.
Yes book truths such as these are only due to generalised statistics of great-grandfathers' trade.
Do you use a TA?
In fact, compound interest (f) and risk are closely intertwined, and more accurate modelling is required for a correct calculation. One could bother with such a test, but so far there is no desire to do so. Personally, I doubt very much that it is possible to assemble a portfolio of elements each with a risk of 100% of the amount given to it.
It's exactly the same as putting together a portfolio of elements that have a 50% risk for example))