Territory of probability - page 3

[Sergey Petruk]

why do you need it? ideal conditions...50,000p stops... the point of this probability not adapted to the current conditions

[Dmitry]

vspexp:
why do you need it? ideal conditions...50,000p stops... the meaning of this probability not adapted to the current conditions

You have to know the enemy in the face and know where to aim. The point is that it is more profitable to make e.g. 10 trades with 100 pips than 100 trades with 10 pips, and the spread fee will be 10 times lower.

[[Deleted]]

07041982:

3) The probability of winning in dynamic lot trading is lower than in fixed lot trading. I came to this conclusion on my own. I will try to prove it: suppose we have a TS, which alternately triggered TP and SL, i.e. SL-TP-SL-TP-SL-TP, while SL = TP. Spread is not taken into account to ease understanding. When trading with a fixed lot, we obtain for example: -$10+$10-10$+$10-10$+$10$=0. When trading with dynamic lot we will get -10%+10%-10%+10%-10%+10%+10% and it will not lead us to zero profit, but will be a loss. For example, the deposit was 100, we got: 100-10%=90; 90+10%=99; 99-10%=89.1; 89.1+10%=98.01; 98.01-10%=88.209; 88.209+10%=97.0299, what we had to prove, the loss is visible.

I agree that bluntly entering % of the deposit is a flawed scheme. But one detail is missing: when one should change the lot? When the balance chart has gone down, should the lot be reduced or left unchanged?

[Sergey Petruk]

I prefer to take it into account and take it for granted, preferring a gross trade rather than scrupulously calculating each point of profit/loss and how it affects equity.

And your example compares 2 different strategies, i.e. again it comes down to determining the effectiveness of the trading method and risk control - what does the theory of probability have to do with it?

[Dmitry]

220Volt:

I agree that a blunt % of depo entry is a flawed scheme. But one detail is missing: when should the lot be changed? When the balance chart has gone down, should the lot be reduced or left unchanged?

The best solution is probably to increase the lot size in steps with the growth of the deposit, i.e. if the deposit is from 0 to 100 then lot=1, if the deposit is from 100 to 200 then lot=2, etc. In this case it is not necessary to decrease the lot at the decrease of the deposit or to decrease also stepwise.

[[Deleted]]

07041982:
The best solution is probably to increase the lot size in steps with the growth of the deposit, i.e. if the deposit is from 0 to 100 then the lot=1, if the deposit is from 100 to 200 then the lot=2, etc. In this case you do not need to decrease the lot at a lowering of the deposited amount or you can do it also stepwise.

Why do you need a step-by-step increase? What positive effect will it have? Nothing, in my opinion. Once the balance has exceeded its peak you may increase it. I'm not saying it's true, just my opinion.

[Dmitry]

vspexp:

I prefer to take it into account and take it for granted, preferring a gross trade rather than scrupulously calculating each point of profit/loss and how it affects equity.

And your example compares 2 different strategies, i.e. again it comes down to determining the effectiveness of the trading method and risk control - what does the theory of probability have to do with it?

Many strategies use entry by signal and exit by SL and TP, the essence of the probability theory is that for such a strategy, it will be more profitable to set large SL and TP than small ones. At that the number of deals will decrease (profit or loss should not change) and therefore the amount of money paid for the spread will decrease. You may have heard of the buy and hold strategy and the fact that trading on higher timeframes is more profitable, all this proves what I am talking about.

[Dmitry]

220Volt:
What is the point of a step-up? What good will it do? In my opinion, nothing. Once the balance peak is exceeded, you can raise. I am not saying that it is true, just my opinion.

If you want to increase a lot at some point (to increase profit), and how to do it if the input = % of the deposit - this is a flawed scheme, only stepwise IMHO.

[[Deleted]]

We must be talking about "Probability Theory".

[Dmitry]

IvanIvanov:
We're probably talking about "Probability Theory".

that's what we're talking about.