Bring the MARTINGALE to its senses. - page 3
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
It is in fact the same martingale, just with a different sauce and not as aggressive. The disadvantages of the classic martingale (doubling the bet after losing) are well known.
P.S. Despite the self-deception in the form of an "improved" entry price, the result does not seem to be any better: if you open a sell 0.1 @ 1.1000 and the price is up, then add a sell 0.1 @ 1.1050 and end up with a loss at 1.1100, the result is minus 150. And in the first open position alone it would be only minus 100. But there is a nice excuse: as a result of dilution the "effective entry price" was 1.1025. Yes, the entry is better, but the risk is greater too, as the total volume is larger.
P.P.S. No, not a martin, but still an increase in risk.
Actually it's the same martingale, just with a different sauce and not so aggressive. The disadvantages of the classic martingale (doubling the bet after a loss) are well known.
P.S. Despite the self-deception in the form of an "improved" entry price, the result does not seem to be any better: if you open a sell 0.1 @ 1.1000 and the price is up, then add a sell 0.1 @ 1.1050 and end up with a loss at 1.1100, the result is minus 150. And in the first open position alone it would be only minus 100. But there is a nice excuse: as a result of dilution the "effective entry price" was 1.1025. Yes, the entry is better, but the risk is greater too, as the total volume is larger.
P.P.S. No, not a martin, but still an increase in risk.
I agree that there is an increase in risk, but the size of the deposit for trades is significantly smaller than for a classic martingale, that's the first thing, and the second is that there is a constant property of the market - the pullback, after a big move. This is what my strategy is based on, that in the end there will be a pullback!
Hmmm... This morning, with a clear head :) I took another look at the share.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but... not in front of women... Isn't he, the expert, adding to unprofitable positions? I.e. engaging in the well known pornography codenamed "averaging"?
If so, then... :(
You don't like adding to a losing position? Why?
Because once we get into a "breakback" (max 20-35 pips) of 10 figures in a trend and catch losses along this entire "track". With a quite predictable ending. And this is not a "just out of thin air" scenario, try the proposed code in the tester. You can get the "right" TF and history period for almost any currency to show that this scenario is real!
The fact that the highlighted is NOT ALWAYS true (yes, true 99% of the time, I agree, but... what about the 1%?) - will you take your word for it or demand screenshots with charts?
Locke will always save the day.
+1
I'll dig in with the martingale =)
The fact that the highlighted is NOT ALWAYS true (yes, true 99% of the time, I agree, but... what about the 1%?) - will you take your word for it or demand screenshots with charts?
Locke will always save
I'll take your word for it :) got into such a situation myself. Yes, now I'm working on the implementation of the lock, followed by a beautiful breakdown.
Actually it's the same as martingale, just with a different sauce and not so aggressive. The disadvantages of the classic martingale (doubling the bet after a loss) are well known.
P.S. Despite the self-deception in the form of an "improved" entry price, the result does not seem to be any better: if you open a sell 0.1 @ 1.1000 and the price is up, then add a sell 0.1 @ 1.1050 and end up with a loss at 1.1100, the result is minus 150. And in the first open position alone it would be only minus 100. But there is a nice excuse: as a result of dilution the "effective entry price" was 1.1025. Yes, the entry is better, but the risk is greater too, as the total volume is larger.
P.P.S. No, not a martin, but still an increase in risk.
Do you have a risk free method? :)
There is no increase in risk. There is a decrease. The result of each trade can be considered independent. Two trades are better than one. Pure mathematics.
1. I don't have a risk-free method (I'm not that crazy yet), but I am slowly and surely moving towards a risk-reducing method.
2. What do you mean by "no increase in risk", dear Vladimir Paukas? The loss was more than in one trade. "Two trades are better than one" - only in the sense that the average result of each (the richest average) is better than the one of the first. But I wouldn't do averaging when assessing risk, it's dangerous.
3. "I would agree, if entries are separated by tens of pips, say, on H1. But this hypothesis also needs to be verified by mathematics.