Making money on forex is impossible - page 23
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
The main thing is not to turn the drawdown into an irreversible loss... :-))
You have been given the wrong answer.
Look at an example. You started trading with 100 roubles, then 200, then 130, then 250.
So the drawdown is 200-130 =70.
That is, from the maximum of the funds before deducting the minimum obtained in the process. That is the deepest hole.
And whether it is fixed or not it does not matter.
Why is it wrong? I think it is very correct. You are just talking about the maximum (the largest of all available) drawdown for the selected period, aren't you? That is, the maximum unrecorded profit for a given period. Ugh, loss.
Market regularities cannot be guessed every time. Against the cunning regularity of the market, contrast your ironclad regularity of not more than 0.1% a day! And offer the market to beat you. It won't!
Yusuf, if a pattern has to be guessed every time, then it is not a pattern.
5/95 is the true prediction-to-miss ratio obtained by a generation of traders. They say it is even lower now, around 1/99.
Exactly !!!
The message-assertion"You can't make money with forex" is incorrect. It is something akin to the statement "Life is impossible". There is clearly something missing in these phrases, they are cut off, they lack an explanatory part. That is,"Life is impossible under such and such conditions. But in these conditions life is possible.
If thismessage "It's impossible to earn money on Forex" is expanded and supplemented, then it will not be cut off at half-words, and everything will become clear and understandable.
"For Namerek1 earning forex is impossible.For Namerek2 earning forex is possible. "
Here it would be appropriate to recall a sporting event - for some to jump two meters (swim, run, etc.) is impossible, and for others to jump two meters (swim, run, etc.) is possible. This phrase is not in doubt, there is no contradiction in it. But half of this phrase would look firstly, controversial, and secondly, incomplete.
Why not correct? I think it's very much correct. It's just that you're talking about the maximum (highest available) drawdown for the chosen period, aren't you? That is, the maximum unrecorded profit for a given period. Ugh, loss.
Throw out 'not fixed' and the maximum is almost right.
When they talk about the drawdown for the period, they mean the maximal drawdown for the period, and when they talk about the drawdown for now, they mean the current drawdown.
Drawdown is the natural state of an account :)
Drawdown isa natural state of the account :)
Moreover: with open positions, the account is in drawdown most of the time.
Let's define what "earning" means, the relative proportions of that earning in relation to the deposit, and what does "earning decently" mean? I think we should first define these concepts. As the basis I propose to take the average value of reinvestment rate or percentage of bank loan. I think if the trader recovers this interest twice, the ear should become golden. Therefore, it is unrealistic to demand from TS to earn more than 20-30% per annum. Few traders, in my opinion, will agree to such "low" rates, and in vain. Your points of view. I think many traders, including me, set an unrealistic target, which is the reason for all the troubles. Many are angry that it is a game, a scam, they move the prices in this way on purpose in order to fool everyone. Nothing of the kind. On Forex the whole world economy is really tied up, the capitalization of real and personal assets of all economic subjects and noneconomic subjects. The world economy "breathes" Forex like air. We have to stop, look around, take a look and think about what kind of monster we are messing with. Coming to numbers, I think that earnings of 0,1% from deposit, or, 1$ per trading day from 1000$ deposit (it is approximately 25% per annum) should be considered as good earnings. In such conditions, and in such limits, perhaps, it is possible to earn steadily.
I.e. if we did not fix it, it is still a drawdown, but as soon as we fixed it, it turned into a loss. The whole difference is in the word fix. Let's assume that this is the case.
Then it remains to deal with the word fix. What is meant by it?
Not to confuse these concepts (this comes from the MT tester, the drawdown is calculated based on closed trades). Many people are confused and deceived by this. Do not be fooled. To fix is to exit a trade.
Keep in mind 1 simple example.
The TS went into a position and sustained a 1000 pips drawdown, but the market rolled back and the TS closed at +5 pips.
Now we have two systems of calculations. The first one says all is OK, there is no drawdown and the profit is +5 (he counts by closing).
The second system of calculation says that the sink should be thrown out of such TS, because at the moment was a drawdown -1000.
S.I. You choose what to use, deceive yourself and think all is well or really look for TCs that have minimal drawdown. Going back to MTs again you won't get it because there is no tick history. You will not be able to get and find the TS with minimal drawdown. Once again I will give you the link to the TS where it is shown that the TS which has a max drawdown of 4 ticks is profitable.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/152354/page3#980354
There is a more accurate and mathematically correct concept of efficiency of entry, exit and transaction is given below formulas (no need to calculate all sorts of average characteristics), on one transaction you can understand good or bad TS
On every trade?
On every trade relative to the initial deposit.
You have to realise that it is almost impossible to open an order and not get even 1 point of pullback against the wind.
P.S.
It is clear that at the beginning of the game, when there is no profit yet, the drawdown eats the deposit itself, but when you start fixing profit, all subsequent drawdowns are within the "fat" that has accumulated due to previous profits.
For me it is acceptable.
It is impossible to be always in the black.