would you still wait for the current kayvan breach of 2 pips if you had this incremental building up of your position?...or would you start earlier?..
yes 2 pips breach is necessary .
could you confirm this post quoted below for wolfe...
do I have this right?
....or do we "can" the lastentryfilter and allow the bars to dictate the kayvan entry...or do you want the breach of the last increment to be breached further for a new "maxentry incremental phased-in position"...this is what the lastentryfilter does...if it is true it forces an exceeding breach..we could simply set to false if it not used.
Now I gotta' think a little...
wolfe would have to leave the last entry filter intact...but somehow organize the max entries to not exceed the doubling progression or the custom progression specified one pip at a time with 0.1 at a time...
Folks the kayvan method and the lags are intact for those of you that appreciate them...
This new addition will only break up the tops and the bottoms in increments...but the kayvan master plan would be followed as it is now.
maxentry incremental phased-in position
what do you mean?
this is how I understand your method...
You want one pip intervals with 0.1 size..right? you answered yes...
Do we incorporate the
I think I have it folks...(waiting for kayvans reply)
I wish I could write Iranian as well as kayvan writes and reads English!
I am confused about one point....while I am waiting for kayvans reply..
does he want to observe a "maximum number of consecutive exceeding 0.1 entries" or not?
spread kills one pip intervals as the value of one pip does not cover the interval...at some point we need to stop entering don't we?
A lot of entries at first glance. Again, like people are reading . K will need
to explain in detail
1st trade - goes where.
2nd progression = goes where...
3.) get out goes where.
without it, its a mess.
Please enable the necessary setting in your browser, otherwise you will not be able to log in.