End of trend (indicator) - page 7
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
Which rule do you want to check?)
Not Zeus, Jesus.
The one where a profitable trade opens more often than a losing one. No maneuvering.
One in which a profitable trade opens more often than a losing trade. No maneuvering.
If a trade, it is one, if "more often", there are many. Look at the history of trades in my account. I just want to tell you that the analysis of the account equity chart can only be correct using this method.
It's better with MM)
Show a good mathematical expectation on a reasonable number of trades without MM. Then all the laurels to you and the appropriate attitude to your system. And then increase the profitability with MM as much as you can, but so far it is inarticulate and unconvincing.
It makes no sense to follow the mate expectation, and even without MM.
Why do you use the term "non-breakdown" and not "breakdown"? Or are you substituting a combination of two concepts - breakdown and false breakdown - with the word "no breakdown"?
I don't take "false breakdown" as a term, because if there is no breakdown, it is "rebound", and if there is not even a "rebound", it is "not a breakdown". And if you know exactly where and when the breakdown happens, it can't be false, so there can't be a false "rebound" or a false "no rebound". And "no rebound" doesn't even come close to a "breakout" because a "breakout" is possible only after the "rebound" signal. But there is a consequence of this regularity "a break of a flat that didn't get beaten off" as well as "a break of a flat that didn't get beaten off" known as a triangle or a flat contraction. A narrowing can only be a "not a rebound" by two extrema and a breakout of an unbroken flat is when there is no rebound (not a breakout) at one extremum and there is a breakout signal at the other one. We can also draw the notion of "rebound of an unbroken flat" when there is no rebound signal at one extremum and a rebound signal at the other extremum. As you can see, it is impossible for one extremum to contain some rebound, a non-bounce, and a breakout all at the same time. And when there are two rebounds at two opposite extrema it is a flat extension.
TRADING ALGORITHM (corrected, supplemented)
Trading at extremums (within the flat)
- Entry at the flat rebound (extremum)
- TP on the opposite extremum
- SL break of the flat extremum
- MM: 10% of the deposit (basis), 1% of the deposit (within the flat)
Trading on flat breakout
- Entry at breakage of the flat extremum
- TP on the flat's end of trend
- SL Breach of the opposite flat extremum
- MM: 10% of the deposit (basis), 1% of the deposit (within the broken flat trend)
3) Trading on the flat trend line extension (rebound or non-rebound)
- Entry behind the point of widening (touching) the flat trend line
- TP on the opposite extremum
- SL break of the flat extremum
- MM: 10% of the deposit (basis), 1% of the deposit (within the flat)
I don't take "false breakdown" as a term because if there is no breakdown it is a "rebound" and if there is not even a "rebound" it is a "non-breakdown". And if you know exactly where and when the breakdown happens, it can't be false, so there can't be a false "rebound" or a false "no rebound". And "no rebound" doesn't even come close to a "breakout" because a "breakout" is possible only after the "rebound" signal. But there is a consequence of this regularity "a break of a flat that didn't get beaten off" as well as "a break of a flat that didn't get beaten off" known as a triangle or a flat contraction. A narrowing can only be a "not a rebound" by two extrema and a breakout of an unbroken flat is when there is no rebound (not a breakout) at one extremum and there is a breakout signal at the other one. We can also draw the notion of "rebound of an unbroken flat" when there is no rebound signal at one extremum and a rebound signal at the other extremum. As you can see, it is impossible for one extremum to contain some combination of rebound, unrebounded and breakout. When there are two rebounds at two opposite extrema, it is a flat extension.
There is no point in watching the mate expectation and even without mm.
Alas - this statement makes you think that your system is a VERY long way from being profitable. One of the weak points right off the bat: your "rebound" or "no rebound", which is used instead of "false-break" will go through your stop-losses, which are in essence "SL break of a flat extremum". It seems to me that you have given a good basic idea, but its further development, at least, to the point when you clearly can explain to another person how one can earn - to go ahead and go ahead - and even through thorns.
- TP on the opposite extremum
- SL break of a flat extremum
Here you get a 50/50 spread. Because the rebound and breakout are VERY RELATIVE and SUBJECTIVE things. Sometimes the price will "break through" to the SP line, but it will do so with such a "false-break" that any SL flies out. That is, you know the price will bounce, it bounces back, but your stop triggers despite it.
And here "meaningless" mate expectation of such situations will sober you up.
I generally come to this forum mostly because of geeks like you (I love puzzles, especially around forex). I've met 4 of them lately. And only one of them was talking nonsense. I've been teaching the smarties here how to tell a duck from an apple with a neural network. The rest, including you, I think have potential in ideas. Though it is far from being realized in a minimally adequate way. I wish you success.
Alas - this statement further tends to suggest that your system is VERY far from profitable. One of the weak points at a glance: your "rebound" or "non-rebound", which is used instead of "false-break", will suck in your stops, which is the essence of "SL break of a flat extremum". It seems to me that you have given a good basic idea, but it may be developed further at least to the point when you can clearly explain to somebody else how one can earn - to go too far and over the thorns.
- TP on the opposite extremum
- SL break of a flat extremum
Here you'll get a 50/50 spread. Because rebound and breakout are VERY RELATIVE and SUBJECTIVE things. Sometimes the price breaks away from the SP line, but makes such a "false-break" that any SL gets out. That is, you know that the price will bounce back, it bounces back, but your stop triggers despite it.
And here the "meaningless" mat expectation of such situations will sober you up.
I generally come to this forum mostly because of geeks like you (I love puzzles, especially around forex). I've met 4 of them lately. And only one of them was talking nonsense. I've been teaching the smarties here how to tell a duck from an apple with a neural network. The rest, including you, I think have potential in ideas. Though it is far from being realized in a minimally adequate way. I wish you success.
This algorithm follows the trend. If a stop triggered, the loss from this stop is negligible compared with the profit that will be generated by simply following the trend. The advantage is that the breakdown signal is known very precisely. In addition stops are not triggered unexpectedly, stops are scheduled and not as frequent as they seem, i.e. according to statistics the word "taking off" is not appropriate here. There is no "long term" or "breakeven" here. The algorithm is more suitable for more real forex, i.e. in some bank where there are no locks and positions are summed up. And when the position is stacked, such a stop is quite adequate.
You can make money even without the robot and you can get results even before the robot is written. If someone wants to understand how to use this method, he has to practice, otherwise it will not be possible. If someone still wants to write a robot, it still needs training, because it needs understanding. In principle, the method is quite clear and concise, so potentially I don't rule out the possibility of writing a robot. The method and algorithm can withstand popular criticism.
The method was invented from scratch, and I seem to recall that its comprehension began with the phrase "price is square to time". At that time there was a problem with scaling of the chart, and a simple hard binding of the second point solved the problem. The angle to know was not so important anymore. What was needed was to know exactly the breakdown signal and the correct drawing of lines, for today this has been accomplished. The algorithm was also developed and equity analysis of the account using this method helped me to find the vulnerabilities, i.e. in fact the trading method itself is used for analysis of trading using this method. Writing an accurate robot can be compared to a great scientific discovery, as this method can be applied to various areas where there are fluctuations.
And mathematical expectation is probability theory...