Slipping in the rain past the drips - page 2
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
I don't need to show you. That was sarcasm. I even wrote a smiley face at the end. But seriously, that's exactly what most newbies want. They want to have a super strategy or a supervisor that would make money and get 100% a month. They don't realize that even Buffet himself does not earn 100% per month or per year. Most do not understand that they may deposit $100 on a forex deposit and at the end of the month they may get minus 50% than plus 100%.
I agree with you completely. That's what I'm talking about in the very beginning of my post. Only I described in numbers the mechanism of 99% of traders losing.
Most do not know how to speak and write correctly, but want to mow dough in a market run by sharks with professorships in finance. That is why I compared forex earnings for the average trader with slippage.
I don't need to show you. That was sarcasm. I even wrote a smiley face at the end. But seriously, that's exactly what most newbies want. They want to have a super strategy or a supervisor that would make money and get 100% a month. They don't realize that even Buffet himself doesn't earn 100% per month or per year. Most fail to understand that they may deposit $100 on a forex deposit and at the end of the month they may get minus 50% than plus 100%.
And I understand that if I had Buffet's capital I would get 100% a year, and even 50 is not necessary, because understanding probability theory and so-called dispersion of outcomes, it's better to sleep peacefully getting 10%, at 1.5 bet very super.
But the majority of people have such a capital that one can only hope for something by looking for a TS for 100500% profit. Yes, few people realise that such by definition have too high a probability of getting minus at any next point in time.
But I understand that if I had Buffett's capital, I would not need 100% a year, and even 50 is not necessary, because understanding the probability theory and the so-called dispersion of outcomes, it is better to sleep peacefully getting 10%, at a rate of 1.5 is very super.
But the majority of people have such a capital that one can only hope for something by looking for a TS for 100500% profit. Yes, few people understand that such by definition have too high a probability to get a minus in any next moment.
Yes exactly, with small capital the risk is even greater. Because to "raise" this capital you have to take a very big risk. One of the modern businessmen said in an interview that the first million is the hardest, then everything is much easier. The same businessman admitted that he stole his first million.
How is it right: "the banana is big and the skin is even bigger"?
Only you don't have to divide the bill into parts, you have to reduce the lot.
What's closer to someone. If you take into account all the risks like "floating spread" (with expansion under 1000 pips, etc.) - it's better to divide the account.
Ideally, the "Depo Load" on the account chart should be around 100% all the time (and not only when you just averaged or locked "all the money" and waiting too long). This is 100% efficiency of the account. Working at 50% KPI is twice as inefficient and has a higher risk, because you can lose all the money at once.
I, for example, only use $15 for 3 pairs at a time out of 28. And that's at 1:200. It is not right to leverage more than that. There are cheap and expensive pairs and depending on the market the EA may open 3 cheap ones simultaneously and there is not enough money for 3 expensive ones (the terminal will write: ... Not enough money forORDER_TYPE_BUY...) - and this is part of the strategy.
Which is closer to whom. If you take into account all the risks like "floating spread" (with expansion under 1000 pips, etc.) - it's better to split the account.
Ideally, the "Depo Load" on the account chart should be around 100% all the time (and not just when you're averaging or locked in "all the money" and overextended). This is 100% efficiency of the account. And working with 50% KPI is 2 times as inefficient and has a higher risk, because you can lose all the money at once.
I, for example, only use $15 for 3 pairs at a time out of 28. And this at 1:200. Making the leverage more is not right. I mean the EA may open 3 cheap and 3 expensive pairs at one time and for 3 expensive pairs not enough money (the terminal will write: ...) Not enough money for ORDER_TYPE_BUY...) - and this is part of the strategy.
I hope you understand that this depends entirely on your planned Stops (or rather planned series of Stops to withstand), i.e., on the TS? And this has direct relevance to maxDD in the next thread ;))
Which is closer to whom. If you take into account all the risks like "floating spread" (with expansion under 1000 pips, etc.) - it's better to split the account.
Ideally, the "Depo Load" on the account chart should be around 100% all the time (and not just when you're averaging or locked in "all the money" and overextended). This is 100% efficiency of the account. And working with 50% efficiency is twice as inefficient and has more risk, because you can lose all the money at once.
I, for example, use only USD 15 for 3 pairs at a time out of 28. And this at 1:200. Making the leverage bigger is not right. There are cheap and expensive pairs and depending on the market the EA may open 3 cheap ones simultaneously, and there will not be enough money for 3 expensive ones (the terminal will write: ... Not enough money for ORDER_TYPE_BUY...) - and this is part of the strategy.
Who cares which account is in the money? What matters is how much risk (i.e. how much of the money you open a position for).
If you do not know it, it is called Money Management, or MM - as old as the world gets. You have to open with such a percentage of funds that none of the above could lead to a loss. It is sort of recommended 10%, or better 5%. But if you have a good size deposit you can do it with 1%, if it will give you enough profit.
Who cares which account is in the money? The important thing is how much risk (i.e. how much of the money is opened in a position).
If you don't know, it's called Money Management, or MM - as old as the world gets. You have to open with such a percentage of funds that none of the above could lead to a loss. It is kind of recommended to have 10%, or better 5%. But if you have a good-sized deposit you may use 1% as long as you have enough profit.
In general, the more trades, the higher is the dispersion with equal ratio of profitable/lossmaking trades. Without it one cannot consider risk per trade. i.e. "very frequent trades" TS should have risks much less, sometimes 0.1%,
to withstand a series of stops that would make it rain all over a person's waistcoat))
And yes, seriously, check out my thread about maxDD write your opinion, very interesting :)
Monkeys, rain, drops. It's crazy how to make money on it. We traders have to show them where to take profit :)
Nah :) That's no way to do it. Trading is a philosophy :). It's hard for you, you tough guys who come to the market for the buns and quick profits :))) Ablom is inevitable :)
P.S.
I liked both the rain and the wild bbis. You can feel that the author is on the subject.
Nah :) That's no way to do it. Trading is a philosophy :). It's hard for you, you tough guys who come to the market for the buns and quick profits :))) Ablom is inevitable :)
P.S.
I liked both the rain and the wild bbis. One can feel that the author is in the subject.
Before replying to this post, you should have read what I wrote after it.
Who cares which account is in the money? The important thing is how much risk (i.e. how much of the money is opened in a position).
If you don't know, it's called Money Management, or MM - as old as the world gets. You have to open with such a percentage of funds that none of the above could lead to a loss. It is sort of recommended 10%, or better 5%. But if the deposit is good-sized, you can go as low as 1%, it would be enough profit.
It all depends on the size of the deposit and the profit plan. I'm not talking about 5% p.a. profit plan (such profit can only satisfy institutional players). We are talking about 50-100% per month for an average deposit.
To get 50-100% a month, I named the leverage size, optimal for my strategy. It's 1:200. And all the usual MM numbers, like 10% per trade from the deposit - this is just an average figure for someone who doesn't understand.
For example, with a licensed 1:30, having $ 1000 on your account, the maximum you can open on the euro-franc: 1000/110000/30=0.3 lots. The "recommended" 10% is 0.03 lots. On 15.01.15 the Euro-Frank fell 30000 pips: stop-losses slipped (as a stop-loss is a normal stop order which is triggered by the market with a text spread). There were only stop-outs, as in your "10% of the deposit": 0.03*30000 points=$900. And earnings at 0.03 lot for $1000. - Not much.
Therefore, in forex, even when trading with real stop-losses, it is more profitable to divide the deposit and on part of the deposit aggressively to make a profit of 100% per month.