Your opinion please - 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
Hm well i cannot agree totaly with ubzen and danjp here because of a few things,
I would not agree that < happen that often. >, /, \ and = happen more often ;) Of course in a range you will not make any profit but if you implement the strategy as pointed out above you will also not add lots inside the range. You need to be prepared to win little, risk much and to have positions open for a very long time. Also remember that huge gaps are definatly a strategy killer.
Of course we all agree that mister martin will sooner or later kill you account, but lets be honest, how many of us did not kill an account? If you trade carefull and withdraw your winnings you have a chance that you have withdrawn the initial deposit before the crash happen. This all implys that you do not try to get rich quickly, have money that you can affort to loose on the first day. (When mighty martin hits you, it hits fast)
Unfortunately the human brain is not designed to imagine exponential functions. Take a look at the screenshot below. Depending on your exit condition you would be able to exit at the X sign, but probably not. This range does not look like a <, i have used a gridsize of 20pips in this example,
If you start the system with 0.1 lot, the last trade was already 25.6 lots, and in total you have open position for 51.1lot. That is an insane amount regarding that you started with 0.1
Of course the whole thing changes when you select a different startpoint, all i wanted to do is to show you some worser case.
Here's some test. I choose 2011 because thats the last year for which I have a full years data. The initial order lot size is 0.1. At 20-Dollars, close all orders. The orders were closed in Worse Losing Orders First. Parm=Grid_Size=20, MM=Martingale, Reverse Tri-Angle vs Classic Grid. All orders are Market-Orders (Not-Pending) because I have the setup for it. Judge for yourself.
Reverse Tri-Angle:
Classic Grid:
Here's some test. I choose 2011 because thats the last year for which I have a full years data. The initial order lot size is 0.1. At 20-Dollars, close all orders. The orders were closed in Worse Losing Orders First. Parm=Grid_Size=20, MM=Martingale, Reverse Tri-Angle vs Classic Grid. All orders are Market-Orders (Not-Pending) because I have the setup for it. Judge for yourself.
Reverse Tri-Angle:
Classic Grid:
Here's some test. I choose 2011 because thats the last year for which I have a full years data. The initial order lot size is 0.1. At 20-Dollars, close all orders. The orders were closed in Worse Losing Orders First. Parm=Grid_Size=20, MM=Martingale, Reverse Tri-Angle vs Classic Grid. All orders are Market-Orders (Not-Pending) because I have the setup for it. Judge for yourself.
Reverse Tri-Angle:
I had to test this myself. I modified the original system to use a even bigger exponential factor.
Why incresing the exponential factor? We all agree that on a reverse triangle this system will fail. Hovever, if we lower our target and increase the exponential factor we decrese the noise a rev-tri can have in order that our system fails. Here are the results with an exponential factor of 9.
0.1 -> 0.9 -> 8.1 lots and so on. with a gridsize of 100pips
Tested since 01.01.2001
Since i know there will come arguments like, uh 70% drawdown and no stops = instant fail here the same test with a hard stoploss of 30% of the balance
As you can see nicely, only two time in ~10Years a 30% drawdown was reached. Gaining 150% with a drawdown of 33% this sound not that bad does it?
Well as conclusion i think that due the approach of incresing the base-exponent sounds illogical (because incresing the risk), testing suggests that this is not the case.
just for fun, what are the results like for other pairs? with or without stoploss. GBPJPY comes to mind.
other question, do you increase the lots on successful closes or loss closes? I'm just not sure I understand that part.
Zzuegg you're still my hero :). I guess you must really like this idea. But 200k deposits and 44.30% Real draw-downs. Come on now Zzuegg, would you even put it on a nano-account?
5k deposit better?
Made some changes in the lot calculation function, now it even works with a expential function with base 3. and the grid is currently 2*iATR to avoid catching the perfect reverse triangle
just for fun, what are the results like for other pairs? with or without stoploss. GBPJPY comes to mind.
other question, do you increase the lots on successful closes or loss closes? I'm just not sure I understand that part.
Not testet with others since i have only good history files for eurusd.
We currently open a reverse position with higer lotsize when the orders go negativeThis business of "hedging" by betting against yourself is bizarre.
We start with say 0.1 lots LONG.
The market turns so we put on 0.2 lots SHORT. The net position is 0.1 lots SHORT. Now we have to ask this question: Is it better to close the LONG position and open a SHORT position or do what we are doing by betting against our own position? To me it is self-evident that betting against yourself is stupid.
Let's look just at the hedged part. We have 0.1 LONG and 0.1 SHORT. They cancel. Price changes make no change for this position. HOWEVER the net swap will always be against us. Unless these are high swap pairs this will not be a huge amount, but it will nevertheless be against us. Hence the longer we hold the position the greater the loss.
Then there is the spread cost. When we open our hedged position we have to pay the spread. I therefore assert that betting against yourself like this makes no financial sense. All it does is calm the ego so you don't have to book an actual loss and you can pretend that the open loss is not as important as a closed loss. But this psychological warfare against yourself is actually costing you real actual money.
This business of "hedging" by betting against yourself is bizarre.
We start with say 0.1 lots LONG.
The market turns so we put on 0.2 lots SHORT. The net position is 0.1 lots SHORT. Now we have to ask this question: Is it better to close the LONG position and open a SHORT position or do what we are doing by betting against our own position? To me it is self-evident that betting against yourself is stupid.
Let's look just at the hedged part. We have 0.1 LONG and 0.1 SHORT. They cancel. Price changes make no change for this position. HOWEVER the net swap will always be against us. Unless these are high swap pairs this will not be a huge amount, but it will nevertheless be against us. Hence the longer we hold the position the greater the loss.
Then there is the spread cost. When we open our hedged position we have to pay the spread. I therefore assert that betting against yourself like this makes no financial sense. All it does is calm the ego so you don't have to book an actual loss and you can pretend that the open loss is not as important as a closed loss. But this psychological warfare against yourself is actually costing you real actual money.
For testing purposes i always prefer the hedging solution since it allows easily to keep track of your open positions. Once you reach a stable state you can simply add 2 functions, one for keeping track at your current betting level and one to CloseBy() the net position
BTW, if you are trading different systems involving different timeframes on the same account 'hedging' is kind of neccessary.