The most important chart for trading - 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
That is, it is not the size of the position that affects the level of risk, but the size of the open position in relation to the amount of equity?
Something is wrong with you (maybe something happened?). Please remember what you wrote:
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
The most important chart for trading
Dmitry, 2017.01.18 08:50
By your logic:
there are two traders, one has a $10 account and the other a $1000 account.
Both have opened, say, a buy eurusd with a lot of 0.01.
"The position size is the same for both of them, but the risk is the same?
Something is wrong with you (maybe something happened?). Please remember what you wrote:
Are we having a festival of meaningless posts? Or just - going around in circles?
I wrote that to demonstrate that the size of an open position without reference to the size of the deposit says nothing about risk.
I wrote this in response to"To sum it up -the amount of leveragehas no effect on the level of risk in trading. The level of risk is influenced by the size of positions the trader opens, and nothing else."(c) TLP" (c).
What is the point of my "recollection"?
Are you sure about this?
Once again - two identical deposits, e.g. $100 each, open two identical positions simultaneously, e.g. SELL 0.01 lot EURUSD, on one account the available leverage is 1:100, and on the other 1:500 and their StopOut will come at DIFFERENT SURRENDING VALUES?
ARE YOU SURE THEY WILL STOP OUT AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DRAWDOWN?
Let's go a little further in your example.
The account currency is EUR,StopOut level is 20%, no commissions, no other positions or orders:
1) Calculate the margin for leverage 1:100:
0.01 x 100,000 / 100 = 10 EUR
2) Calculatemargin for leverage 1:500:
0.01 x 100,000 / 500 = 2 EUR
3) The price has gone against the trader - when the position is closed, the trader will receive a loss of 98 EUR.
Checking whether there will bea StopOut for 1:100 leverage:
(100-98)/10 x 100 = 20% (caughtStopOut)
Check if theStopOut will be for a leverage of 1:500:
(100-98)/2 x 100 = 100% (trade on - I'm sure price will go my way soon)
:)
As you can see from the example, all other things being equal, I repeat,the lower the leverage - the greater theStop Outrisk.
Let's go a little further in your example.
The account currency is EUR,StopOut level is 20%, no commissions, no other positions or orders:
1) Calculate the margin for leverage 1:100:
0.01 x 100,000 / 100 = 10 EUR
2) Calculatemargin for leverage 1:500:
0.01 x 100,000 / 500 = 2 EUR
3) The price has gone against the trader - when the position is closed, the trader will receive a loss of 98 EUR.
Checking whether there will bea StopOut for 1:100 leverage:
(100-98)/10 x 100 = 20% (caughtStopOut)
Checking whether there will be aStopOut for leverage 1:500:
(100-98)/2 x 100 = 100% (trade on - I'm sure price will go my way soon)
:)
As you can see from the example, all other things being equal, I repeat,the lower the leverage - the greater theStop Outrisk.
The smaller the leverage, the less we will lose when you stop out, with a leverage of 1:50 stopout will be many times less than your moose not fully grown, and after that you can continue trading, but with a leverage of 1:500 if the price does not turn around, you will lose almost your entire deposit and there will be nothing to continue the trade.
I left the forum for a long time (including taking time out).
And later I realized that in the second scheme, with a lot size of0.10, I had a mistake (due to my inattention) in the description header. It should have been shown with one four-digit point value equal to $1, and a five-digit point value equal to $0.10.
That is, in the very post with that scheme, I originally (and at the very beginning of the post) wrote those valueshttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/166224/page6#comment_4009497:
Accordingly, one point profit/loss (the fifth at five-digit quotes) would already be $0.10. The fourth point in five- and four-digit quotes =$1:
But in the scheme, making it copied from the one with 0.01 lot, I did not notice that I did not corrected it according to the lot size.
This is the scheme in the correction in the hat:
I will now replace it in that post as well. Adding about the change-correction.
Are we having a festival of meaningless posts? Or are we just going around in circles?
I wrote this to demonstrate that the size of an open position without reference to the size of the deposit says nothing about risk.
I wrote this in response to"To sum it up -the amount of leveragehas no effect on the level of risk in trading. The level of risk is influenced by the size of positions the trader opens, and nothing else."(c) TLP" (c).
What is the point of my "recollection"?
Given what you, others and I have written since the beginning of this thread, and also as I look at the post where Ingensi quoted the text containing the phrase you quoted through a different lens of perception (the lens of communication with him on other issues earlier), there is, I suppose, a mutual misunderstanding.
I took that post of his differently than you did, having some insight into Ingensi (including remembering his irony). And not wanting to develop further misunderstanding between you, I wrote those posts:
For you and many others (including Ingensi and me) the fact that the size of the deposit matters - is taken for granted, I suppose. And in this thread it has been written about influence of the size of a deposit by different people (including myself) in various forms and directly or indirectly practically from the beginning of a thread.
P./S.: By the way, I understood only much later, that Ingensi had quoted not only that phrase or paragraph, which you have quoted later. And he was not quoting himself.
Apparently I was very tired and did not notice it at once.
But I still take the text he quoted as I took it originally and as I tried to tell you in the three posts I quoted here.
And about "Remember, please" - I seem to have misunderstood you, mistaking your clarifying question: https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/166224/page8#comment_4010037 for you contradicting yourself.
So... So there you go.
Are we having a festival of meaningless posts? Or are we just going around in circles?
I wrote this to demonstrate that the size of an open position without reference to the size of the deposit says nothing about risk.
I wrote this in response to"To sum it up -the amount of leveragehas no effect on the level of risk in trading. The level of risk is influenced by the size of positions the trader opens, and nothing else."(c) TLP" (c).
What is the point of my "recollection"?