Here's a new high.
Ah, I see. This condition is after the trade has gone wrong (cut loss the existing trade), then its gone wrong again (after opening lot 12.00).
That is why you have a sudden spike in both equity and balance. Then, at some point, you need to give up this 12.00 lot (which happen once in 2 years without indicator) and that cost you 20% of the equity.
When you say "But there's the other possibility, where it goes (y) pts in the other direction and hit that f*cking dead level," I think maybe you can weight that possibility more towards winning by using an indicator. I mean it's still worth trying, does it?
Open deal 1, Open deal 2 , open deal 3 ---> possibility to closeby 2-1 ---> close 1, 2 ---> deal 3 remains (1.70) ----> hedge the deal 3 in its actual position with an opposite order 11.20
Hmmm.. That might work!
Let me recap: I might be useful for others who are reading this.
>First open buy (lot 1.00) then the market reverse down to 1000pts
>Open sell lot 3.00 (lot 1.00 x 3 = lot 3.00) if the market goes down further, close both buy and sell whenever the total profit is > 0 (like a martingale).
>If the market reverses again and move up back to first open price (1000pts upward), a 3rd trade will be open at lot 9.00 (lot 3.00 x 3 = lot 9.00) while lot 1.00 (1st trade) will be closed.
>This time, if the market still reverses, give up the loop by closing both buy and sell.
Am I right?
Yeah, I know. Me too describing the idea in general. There is no way a magician will reveal their magic trick. :)
At a point no. 4 does that mean you will close with a loss when you unclogged 0.4 out?
There's one thing I don't understand.
When it is 0.1 against 0.3, the margin used is 0.2?
Then, when it is 1 against 0.3, isn't at that time the margin used only 0.7?
why do you say it needs to be unclogged?
During 1 against 0.3, after you remove those two trade (0.1 and 0.3), the margin used will return to 0.9, does it?
If it is the martingale, it sure does need to be unclogged since it is a margin consuming. But for hedging?
Do you have any good reason for it?
I may have erroneously reasoned, but I told myself that the fewer lots there were the better for the margin it is.
You're obviously right. I need to re-think the thing.
No you're wrong. It doesn't change the freemargin, but the margin used is increased so the marginlevel is decreased - whatever if the position profitable or not.
Hmm... interesting Saraceno ! It's indeed possible to postpone positions closure until the outcome is sure.
It's a progress, now risk is weighted much well, 4 consecutives loss are no longer threatening the account, but it'll take more time to be sure since on other indexes (ibex, footsie) in 2018, the curve acts alike.