Into the castle - page 2
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
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 silly or it is related to the drawdown of equity.
If the price has gone against you and you know what to do, you should open an opposite order with a different volume. The lock should be set if you need time to understand what to do.
Open two opposite orders, after some time close the positive order and destroy the negative one. The probability of that will destroy almost 100%.
If you close on the SL, then there will be nothing to destroy.)
When others will take out on the SL, you will earn.
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, strategies using locks are possible.
When using a stop loss 10 out of 10 losing trades will be losing.
When using locks, 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...
I support this opinion.
Deceived himself and earned. Fooled his greed, anger and ignorance and made a profit. Some cannot do without deception. That is their right. And why not, if it makes them a profit? (rhetorical question).
Great is the power of self-indulgence. If the locke is negative, it gives the appearance that money has not yet been lost. But it has already been lost, and there is nothing we can do about it, because by setting a lock we actually acknowledge a loss, but pretend that nothing of the kind happened.
Basically, what is the difference between a lock and a simple closing? Nothing. So, when we close a position we are admitting the loss. And then self-hypnosis begins.
In fact, until we close the position, it is only a drawdown (in terms of equity). But as soon as we have closed the position, the drawdown immediately turns into a loss. But we do not want to admit this obvious fact.
And then, as a result of the progressing state of self-hypnosis, we get such "mystical" notions as"settling","respite","slamming of blocked orders", ... etc. etc.
If stop losses are used, 10 out of 10 losing trades will be losing trades.
If locks are used, ideally 10 out of 10 losing trades will be profitable.
Can you give me an example where a lock is more profitable than a stoploss and further reopening when the price goes back?
The trading system showed an opportunity to buy: opened buy, made a mistake after 50 pips and opened sell. The price crawled away from the Buy for a total of 150 pips, +100 pips for the Village. The system shows another possibility to buy, opened buy, closed sell +100 points.
Even if the system produces 4-5 wrong signals in a row and the next one is correct, it is always better than simple fixation of negative signals and demoralization of the system.
In my example we haven't yet used maneuvers with order volumes.
Even if the system gives 4-5 wrong signals in a row and the next right one is always better
In this case the problem will be the same as with martingale - if you have enough deposit. Every new tray paralyzes another part of the deposit, and when/if one has to close a losing deal/s, because the deposit is already paralyzed and there is no money for a new tray, the loss will not be comparable to the loss from stops
I don't think we should run away from lots, but for every single lot, there has to be a market reason, not the hope for statistics like in the casino
The trading system showed an opportunity to buy: opened buy, made a mistake after 50 pips and opened sell. The price crawled away from the Buy for a total of 150 pips, +100 pips for the Village. The system shows another possibility to buy, opened buy, closed sell +100 points.
Even if the system produces 4-5 wrong signals in a row and the next one is correct, it is always better than simple fixation of negative signals anddemoralization of the system.
In my example we haven't yet used maneuvers with order volumes.
Considering that lock is a comfortable loss and basically the same thing is a strong idea. Let's not forget that if a loss is fixed at 50% of the balance, it will take 100% of the profit to cover that loss (without adding more money)!
So lock and fixing a loss are completely different things and you have to fight to the last for the dough.
And now about the lock. Google it and we get a huge list of pros and cons.
But when we talk about the lock lock, let us not forget that there is no grail in forex. It's the same with locke. Yes, there is such a tool, but you need to know how to use it.
And the ability to use it depends on the trading strategy.
If the trading strategy consists only of locks and averages, then the losses are guaranteed.
If we have a profitable trading strategy, which is profitable without locks and averaging, the lock, together with the averaging, will be a very useful tool in such a profitable strategy.
Let's consider a variant.
You have a TS that naturally opens positions based on some prediction of price movement.
You open a position and after a while it turns out that the market goes against the position. The signal was wrong.
And now the most important thing.
If your trading strategy shows that we should open an opposite position, then we open a position in the size of the one that is already open. The drawdown is fixed. This is a lock.
Since the TS is still mainly profitable, the new position - the lock will go to the profit. When do we close the lock? Obviously, when the reversal signal appears. We close the profit-lock position and open an additional position to the existing loss-making one. We wait for profitability.
Everything written above hinges on having a profitable strategy. If you do not have one, no lock will save you from losing your account.
By placing an opposite order (i.e. a positive position) of e.g. double volume, if the price moves in the direction of the double volume you will have an enlarged position, 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.