Which is more important - the entrance or the exit? Is the entry point even important? Is the exit point even important? - page 9
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
Entry is more important. Exits may be important, but never more important than entries. This is my opinion :))
To make money in the market you need to find the right entry point. To make more money, you need to be able to find the exit point.
p.s. Although if we're going to be - underperforming at exits, we risk picking up minuses at unsuccessful entrances )))
Well, if you take 10 times 10 and then lose 100 in one trade, do you think PF=10, i.e. the system becomes super profitable???
The entry is more important. An exit may be important, but it is never more important than an entrance. This is my opinion :))
I can't show the proof, but if you abstract away from the single trade and go to the formation of the position and then track it and the final close, you will see that this algorithmic ring primitively converges to Paukass' definition of "What do we expect from the market".
What is there to describe?
Simplify to three states:
1. Assume growth.
2. Assume decline.
3. the hell knows.
In the first case, we buy; in the second, we sell; in the third, if there is no position, we do not do anything, and if there is, we exit.
The first two you have to look for. The third, on the other hand, is difficult to get wrong.you will see that this algorithmic ring primitively converges to Paukass' definition of "What we expect from the market".
Entrance is more important. Exit may be important, but never more important than entry. That's my opinion :))
If I have a coup (i.e. I'm always in the market) and an exit from one trade means an entrance into the opposite one. Where do I enter and where do I exit?
If I have a coup (i.e. I'm always in the market) and an exit from one trade means an entrance into the opposite one. Where do I enter and where do I exit?
Is it really a system?
Or is it an illusion?
All the "systems" that are always in the market seem to me to be losing money - because of the spread, commissions and execution slippage.
Use the opportunity to "sit tight" without any trades and you'll be happy...
;)
No. Entry is the head. For any system. Even if it is a system with averaging or \and topping up, martin or anti matrix. Every next entry is more important than the previous one, especially with martin.
The system has nothing to do with the market behavior. During the last months the EUR has been trending, yes, the entry is important - you entered on a pullback in a trend, jumped out on time with a profit.
But if the market goes sideways, your any entry will imply a timely exit
SZZY: the topic is essentially nothing, it's easier to search for old threads where they were discussing price reversals
Is it really a system?
Or is it an illusion?
The "systems" that are always in the market, as far as I'm concerned, are all about the spread, commissions and execution slippage.
Use the possibility to "sit around" without deals - you'll be happy...
;)
If I have a sale at around 1.26, what commission, slippage, spreads can scare me? ))) The market is either rising or falling, a flat is an inability to interpret the current state of the market. I'm not saying I'm idle. I make mistakes too. But it's easier to work this way.
If I have a sale at around 1.26, what commission, slippage, spreads can scare me? ))) The market goes up or down, the flat is the inability to interpret the current state of the market. I'm not saying I'm idle. I make mistakes too. But it's easier to work this way.
Good luck!
But don't neglect the opportunity to take a break from the market...
This is our trader's 'Zero' to the market.
;)