Stops are the way to go. - page 11
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 effectiveness of stops is strictly related to entry accuracy. If the entry accuracy is low, the stops will not save, and on the contrary will accelerate loss. TC with poor entry accuracy without stops may not plummet for a long time (for example in a sideways trend with a slight slope). If to such TS screw stops, the draw-off will come earlier. But if the TS stops are small and triggered rarely, it means that the accuracy of the entry is very good. This is what we should strive for.
Ooh. Didn't even pay attention to that kind of correlation, and I should have. And it was on the surface, not seen. Quite right. From that point of view it makes sense to think where you can put no stops, or put them far away, and where you can only put short stops, and I always have such places. Good point.
Stops are the way to success.
Without protective stops, trading is doomed to failure. Most players in the financial markets know this.
Optimizing stop orders has been on my mind for many years. I think it is not only me.
I want to hear the opinion of experienced traders and programmers in this field, for you understand what).
Optimization of the size of the "stop" is possible only in the case of buying a Stop :). In all other cases, any "stop" increases the rate of "losing" the deposit. Moreover, the speed of "draining" has a non-linear relationship.
The time series of a financial instrument (or, to be more precise, a financial asset) is a trading system. Therefore, in any case, even a one-time losing of the deposit in a single trade is, in this case, closing of an open position by a "stop".) Then by analogy, not strictly, of course, the position opening at Open price and closing at Close price can be presented as a TS. A classic one, you could say. The specified prices can be compared with almost any TS invented by a trader. Again, this is not very strict, of course. But as a fact, I think it is acceptable. Optimization of the obtained TS clearly shows that the STOP, in its classic interpretation, is a stupidity:). Why? :) There, we optimize the TS with the value of "stop" equal to zero. We draw a conclusion based on testing "many" time series of financial assets. What is the conclusion? :)
And yet, "from year to year, from century to century", it is believed that limiting and optimizing the loss value by placing, instead of buying, STOP, is a good thing. :)
Optimization of the stop value is possible only in the case of buying a Stop :). In all other cases, any stop increases the speed of "draining" the deposit. Moreover, the rate of "draining" has a non-linear dependence.
The time series of a financial instrument (or, to be more precise, a financial asset) is a trading system. Therefore, in any case, even a one-time losing of the deposit in a single trade is, in this case, closing of an open position by a "stop".) Then by analogy, not strictly, of course, opening of a position at Open price and closing at Close price can be presented as a TS. A classic one, you could say. The specified prices can be compared with almost any TS invented by a trader. Again, this is not very strict, of course. But as a fact, I think it is acceptable. Optimization of the obtained TS clearly shows that the STOP, in its classic interpretation, is a stupidity:). Why? :) There, we optimize the TS with the value of "stop" equal to zero. We draw a conclusion based on testing "many" time series of financial assets. What is the conclusion? :)
And yet, "from year to year, from century to century", it is believed that limiting and optimizing the loss value by placing, instead of buying, STOP, is a good thing. :)
I place stops purely for force majeure, like communication failure, electricity, catastrophic price swing, like once with the franc. But otherwise I close according to the algorithm.
I put stops purely for force majeure, like a blackout, power outage or a catastrophic price spike like the franc once did. Otherwise, I close according to the algorithm.
That's the way we all are, at least until we realize or find another time series model to trade with. :)
Optimization of the stop value is possible only in the case of buying a Stop :). In all other cases, any stop increases the speed of "draining" the deposit. Moreover, the rate of "draining" has a non-linear dependence.
The time series of a financial instrument (or, to be more precise, a financial asset) is a trading system. Therefore, in any case, even a one-time losing of the deposit in a single trade is, in this case, closing of an open position by a "stop".) Then by analogy, not strictly, of course, opening of a position at Open price and closing at Close price can be presented as a TS. A classic one, you could say. The specified prices can be compared with almost any TS invented by a trader. Again, this is not very strict, of course. But as a fact, I think it is acceptable. Optimization of the obtained TS clearly shows that the STOP, in its classic interpretation, is a stupidity:). Why? :) There, we optimize the TS with the value of "stop" equal to zero. We draw a conclusion based on testing "many" time series of financial assets. What is the conclusion? :)
And yet, "from year to year, from century to century", it is believed that limiting and optimizing the loss value by placing, instead of buying, STOP, is a good thing. :)
If you are sure of the quality of your entries you can hope to "just in case" and not place stops, but sooner or later this will definitely result in a black swan.
The best results will be achieved by using reliable entries with short stops. Of course a lot depends on market timing, market volatility etc. I think stops are necessary. My percentage of correct entries is insufficient to not use them at all. I consider locking unprofitable positions a waste of time. Stops are better.
I agree with Alexey thatforce majeure cannot be cancelled.
Stops are the way to success.
Without protective stops, trading is doomed to failure. Most players in the financial markets know this.
...And it's the majority who are losing safely. I used to wonder what it would be like to trade without stops.
Stops are the way to success.
Without protective stops, trading is doomed to failure. Most players in the financial markets know this.
Optimizing stop orders has been on my mind for many years. I think it is not only me.
I want to hear the opinion of experienced traders and programmers in this field, for sure).
For example I can calculate stoppers statistics: if price reaches 70% of stop and comes close to it, in how many % of deals will close with a loss? And it may turn out that the majority of such deals really close with a loss, so you can safely reduce the stop loss, on a large number of deals it will save a couple of percent of the deposit