Into the castle
When I look at different information all of a sudden they start writing that it's better to make a lock than a counter-order will work at a stop.
I watched various information, everybody suddenly started to write that it is better to lock than to set a stop and then close a counter order. But this is stupid or this is due to the drawdown of equity. Can't they just open a new order (even if spread is taken into account), it will be more profitable than opening a counter order?
This is a very controversial issue. There are many fans of this method and many opponents. It is not a problem to open a position but it is a problem to close both positions without losses. This all applies to the trading system, if the trading system has clear rules when to enter a lock and when to open a lock and it brings profit, you can use a lock.
Generally speaking, if it is profitable not only in a short period of time, but also in the long term, I do not see anything wrong with using a lock.
... If the trading system has clear rules on when to enter the lock, when to open the lock and it brings profit, then you can use the lock...
In terms of trading itself, a lock is no different from closing a position and then reopening it.
The only advantage of a lock is psychological. And as a reminder.
After closing the position it will disappear from trader's memory. And when there is a "padlock", the trader always remembers that there was a drawdown here that should be closed. And the balance figure does not seem to change, although the balance does not mean anything, the real money is Equity.
And there is very little difference for cases when brokerage company calculates deposit for transactions based on balance, not on Equity - but there seems to be no such brokerage companies anymore.
This is bullshit. If the TS is profitable and "knows" when to open the lock, it "knows" where the price will go. And if it knows the direction of price movement, then why do we need a lock?
I told you the question is debatable :) Now we are going to have a hullabaloo.
...
It may be unprofitable (I myself do not use a lock) and the lock makes it profitable, but personally, I do not know such a trading system in which the use of the lock allowed to make a profit.
Tell me, what is the "big" advantage of insuring orders when the price reverses, by opening a counter-order...
Purely psychological. Plus, as George Merts said above, a "reminder" of the drawdown with the function of automatic calculation of the current profit/loss. There is no more point in having a lock. The only thing you get from a lock is additional loss in the form of a swap. I think it is much more profitable to create an indicator that will display all this information to trader instead of the lock.
It is quite another matter, if several Expert Advisors are trading. Each of them is usually a fairly simple strategy. Combining these strategies in one EA is an additional cost, which is not clear how to pay back. In this case counter market orders are quite possible in some sections. But this is a bit of a different lock than most traders use.
If we want to stay in the market in the direction of the trend, we do not close the order at the beginning of the correction, we open an order against the trend and close it at the end of the correction. We obtain a short-term lock.
Only theorists, analysts and all non-traders around the market can reason as described above.
In practice, a stop loss is a stop loss.
A lock is a time to think about the situation and strategies using locks are also possible.
When using a stop loss 10 out of 10 losing trades will be losing.
When using a lock, ideally 10 out of 10 losing trades will be profitable.
Stop losses are promoted and sold by brokers' advertising companies. Your stop loss is the profit of the kitchen or the broker.
Your lock is a potential loss for the broker and even a double loss.
That's why all these companies, talks, statements like "locks are nonsense" are from the evil one...
If a trader does not know how to use the locks it is the trader's problem.
The statistics says that 97% of traders do not know how to use even basic stop loss in terms of trading strategy, and you are already talking about locks...
When I look at different information all of a sudden they start writing that it's better to make a lock than a counter-order will work at a stop.
I watched various information, everybody suddenly started to write that it is better to lock than to set a stop and then close a counter order. If we take into consideration the spread, it would be more profitable to open a new order, than to open a counter order.
When opening a counter order (i.e., if there is a winning position), for example, with the double volume, if the price moves in the direction of the double volume you will have an increased position and if the price moves against it, calculate the
Breakeven on both positions.
You can always open two opposite orders, one to take profit, and the other to lock.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
When I look at different information all of a sudden they start writing that it's better to make a lock than a counter-order will work at a stop.
I watched various information, everybody suddenly started to write that it is better to lock than to set a stop and then close a counter order. If we take into consideration the spread, it would be more profitable to open a new order, than to open a counter order.