F - page 26
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
speed of movement so far is negative, you can't take several days into account, it's not statistics)
I use a more complicated formula that takes into account not only the current state, but also historical data.
Greetings, Automat!
Has it ever occurred to you that it's harder to win back than to earn if you use reinvesting? In other words, what is the necessary and sufficient % of margin on the reinvested deposit? I have noticed that systems with fixed lot are better standing and more confident (but unfortunately they take too long to increase deposit) in case of wrong signal. I've been puzzling over it for months. So far nothing good has come to my mind and I have not come up with a formula...
Greetings, Automat!
Has it ever occurred to you that it is harder to win back than to earn if you use reinvestment?
Hi!
This is a purely psychological problem, caused by constant recollection of losses, when these memories become obsessive. You must get rid of this problem and overcome it. If you have suffered a loss in any instrument over a certain critical level, shut it the hell down and do not recollect it, switch to another instrument. And when the "pain of loss" subsides, you can return to it. But not in order to "win back" !!! The term "win back" should be dropped from use. In the case of losses the problem does not change - you need to gain, but to gain from the current, lower, level. Reinvestment has nothing to do with this "psychology". Reinvestment is a task of technique, not psychology.
I.e. what is the necessary and sufficient % of margin on the reinvested deposit? I've noticed that systems with a fixed lot stand on their feet better and more confidently (but unfortunately they take a very long time to increase the deposit) in the case of an erroneous signal. I've been puzzling over it for months. So far nothing good has occurred to me and I have not come up with a formula...
It's not the constant lot that is needed, but the percentage of involved funds - the work volume will change correspondingly.
You may figure out, which proportion of used funds is comfortable for you. The leverage plays an important role in this case. This dependence is inversely proportional -- the higher the leverage, the less percentage of used funds. And this dependence looks like this :
The figures on the chart are just an example!
The specific values of the share of funds involved, you choose for yourself - you have to stay within your comfort zone, otherwise the "psychology" will cry out ;)
Hi!
This is a purely psychological problem, caused by constant memories of losses, when these memories become obsessive. You need to get rid of this problem and to overcome it. If you have losses in some instrument, exceeding some critical level, close it to hell, do not recollect it, switch to another instrument. And when the "pain of loss" subsides, you can return to it. But not in order to "win back" !!! The term "win back" should be dropped from use. In the case of losses the problem does not change - you need to gain, but to gain from the current, lower, level. Reinvestment has nothing to do with this "psychology". Reinvestment is a task of technique, not psychology.
It's not a constant lot, but a percentage of the used funds, and the working lot will change accordingly.
You just need to figure out for yourself, which leverage you feel comfortable with. The leverage you use is very important. This dependence is inversely proportional -- the higher the leverage, the less percentage of used funds. And this dependence looks like this:
The figures on the chart are just an example!
The specific values of the share of funds involved, you choose for yourself - you have to stay within your comfort zone, otherwise the "psychology" will cry out ;)
You're not really explaining the psychology and lost money - I do not use it.
I also use leverage in the same format as you do.
I am talking about something else, i.e. funds as a percentage of the deposit that we allocate to trading on the one hand and on the other hand - how much should we cover in case of an error so that the deposit growth process continues along the best path, i.e. how to express the function of deposit growth and deposit fall relation with a formula?
Well, you're a little bit exaggerated about psychology and lost money, I don't use it.
You shouldn't use it, but get rid of it ;) Well, I'm just saying...
My leverage is also accounted for, in the same format as yours.
That's true. That's understandable.
The question is about something else, i.e. about funds as a percentage of deposit, which we allocate to trades on one hand and on the other hand - how much should we cover in case of error, so that the process of deposit growth continues in the best way, i.e. how to express the function of deposit growth and deposit fall relation with a formula?
Here I do not quite understand your question.
But I can assume that you mean - in case of error - the speed at which the losses grow.
If so, we may assume that halving of work volume leads to halving of loss rate and therefore the critical level is moved back.
Approximately so :
Here at step 10 the lot is halved, and at step 18 it is halved again. Let the critical level be 1000. Then, if we had not performed partial closing, the critical level would have been reached at the 14th step. Partial closing allowed us to increase the critical level by 10 steps. But if we are sure that it is a short-term pullback, upsurge etc., then it may be over.
This task can be seen as reaching a critical mass of losses. But the point doesn't change.
If I have misunderstood your question, please clarify.
You shouldn't use it, you should get rid of it ;) Well, I'm just saying...
That's true. That's understandable.
But here I do not quite get the gist of your question.
But I can assume that you mean - in case of error - the speed at which the losses increase.
If so, then we can assume that halving the working lot leads to halving the rate of losses, and therefore the critical level is moved away.
Approximately so :
Here at step 10 the lot is halved, and at step 18 it is halved again. Let the critical level be 1000. Then, if we had not performed partial closing, the critical level would have been reached at the 14th step. Partial closing allowed us to increase the critical level by 10 steps. But if we are sure that it is a short-term pullback, upsurge etc., then it may be over.
This task can be seen as reaching a critical mass of losses. But the point doesn't change.
If I misunderstood your question -- clarify.
Yeah, that's closer to the subject.
Dependence of the decrease and increase of the lot size according to the reinvestment scheme is not linear. For example, if the deposit grows, we have a geometrical progression of deposit growth in case of absence of trading errors, and the lot size increases correspondingly. If we have constant errors, the dependence of the deposit decrease is probably reversed. I suppose the intersection of these two functions is the optimal reinvestment percentage value if we consider the percentage of errors as an input parameter. What do you think?
The point is to predict such a reinvestment strategy that we may quickly correct the size of the deposit in case of a certain drawdown. It may be possible to predict the size of the maximum risk and the size of the loss by the same function.
Yeah, that's closer to the subject.
Dependence of the decrease and increase of the lot according to the reinvestment scheme is not linear. For example, if the deposit grows, we have a geometric progression of deposit growth in case of absence of trading errors, and the lot increases correspondingly. If we have constant errors, the dependence of the deposit decrease is probably reversed. I suppose the intersection of these two functions is the optimal reinvestment percentage value if we consider the percentage of errors as an input parameter. What do you think?
The point is to predict such a reinvestment strategy that we may quickly correct the size of the deposit in case of a certain drawdown. It may be possible to predict the size of the maximum risk and the size of the loss by the same function.
If the TS is flawed, then no amount of tricks with lottery and/or leverage will help - the end result is the same - a loss.
If you start doubling your deposit in a week at the most, you'll see what I mean.