Scold :) Interested to hear your opinion regarding... - page 11
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
OK, Sergei, here's another question I want to ask:
why did you give such an unambiguous definition of this, almost a councillor, as no-action? interesting your train of thought(if the questions don't distract you from your current job or anything else of course)
It's true. I'm here more often than can be justified (until the description gets to publication).
Why. Essentially. Finding an entry with StopLoss is not an idea, it's a fallacy.
Here, Vita uses a very good term - "stat advantage". Judge for yourself.
Well... flip of a coin. Classic. 50%, spread-dropping. "You find anything in that process with StopLoss? No.
The market. The trends are there, but they're not used in your under-advisor. "Can you use a StopLoss on the market? No.
Why not? Because it will cost you money, but it won't do you any good. Because the algorithm of "groping" is not the preferential, but random with respect to statistical processes.
--
That's it. Off to work.
(It's fascinating, isn't it?:) come to the cottage, we'll have a chat:)
No overshooting. If the strategy is totally unsuccessful = close immediately. - What strategy? You're not just going in, are you? And we kind of think in terms of stops. What do you mean by an entry was totally unsuccessful?
We see that the entry was late = we wait for the situation to change, and do not give it to take and stop. - Do we see - is it intuition, or do the strict and formal points of the strategy say - wait?
Entry is almost successful = we wait for the situation to change, and do not give it at the mercy of the take and stop.- I do not understand, do we intuitively know what our luck is, or do we use a formula?
In general, we proceed from the fact that we do not have the right to open a monkey with our strategy.( Here we go again...) - Here, I think so, entry happens. What strategy do we have? Intuitive closing?
We have a hold and close function. - Is the function on intuition or is it strictly formalized?
The conclusion is that holding and closing is not 5 or 10 but the full 50% of success and should not be left to myopic Tics and Stops.
Only a postive recalculation of the probability of further moves. - No, as soon as I see hope for a pockmarking noise, I immediately stop believing in people.
When we open the market by ourselves we rather get the urge to set take and stop... - I dare say that when we open on our own, we do not do it for the sake of fun, but with a vested interest - to make a profit. The maximum, the most probable, statistically justified. Hence the fixed take and stop positions. If you only have hope and intuition, then it is clear that you can open in either direction and wait for the arrival. For God's sake, but autotrading is whatever the hell we think it is. Any EA is a logical price breaker to the bone. Either it has a formula of catching the trend on the fly (well, well, well), or it has a statistical reason to open in a certain direction with certain stops and takes in certain situations.
Still, I can see you romanticising trivial overshooting.
I completely agree with Mischek.
In the system I am writing now I have decided to bet on two things - opening, even with a bad signal, but which at least brings something and does not trade at a loss, and working on the logic of closing, because it is all 90% of success. The second point - the system is a trend system, so it should be a reversal, and if so, the closing is carried out when you can open in the other direction.
Of course, the position may be closed before the end of the signal, but in this case, we will look for other possibilities to enter
in the trend before it finishes. And by the way, the logic of closing and additional openings only during the trend has already doubled the total profit.
But this is not the limit yet. In the end, the signal will give 3-4 times more profit for the duration of the signal due to the "right" outputs. And this is not a pips - the signal easily catches 1500 points.
And as for the stops - they are not in fact used (there is a nominal 200 points, which is never triggered by itself due to logic).
Well, as for TP - any optimization of the system by TP does not lead to increased profits, which is good!
Romanticism in trivial overshooting is popular.
I have no doubt that "working on the logic of closes" on a bad signal is waiting for breakeven.
The MM is only about changing betting sizes according to signals coming from the analytical part of the system, and nothing else.
I think this is already RM
Sergey (SK), may I count on you to answer such a question (alaverdy):
you've often mentioned the idealess MM... what do you think would be the idea-based MM and why? and if possible, at least one clear exampleSZZ: It is interesting to hear other people's opinions, too, welcome.
There is a test for people with higher education in finance, like: you have a 60% probability to guess how a coin will fall. How much money do you need to bet to maximise your profits?
This is Kindergarten, of course, but with the existing statistical advantage the problem has the only correct solution (hence the fixed take and stop in trading), which without a stretch can be called an ideological MM. A 60% stat advantage is where the money comes from. Without stat advantage you will not make profit with any betting tricks.
In the case of a trade, if you do not know the winning streak, the correct assumption is a 50/50 split, i.e. no stat advantage. With such a scenario any manipulation with money can not be called MM. As many times as you wish it could be called MM, but it cannot be called MM.
Until you have a statistical advantage (milking cow) and have not calculated its value (how to milk), it is premature to talk about MM (the process of milking). I note that this circumstance in no way prevents the existence of people rubbing in untrained ears that in the absence of statistical advantage (milking cow) you can engage in milking profits from MM (milking process). Any farmer who, in the absence of a cow, would wag his hands in the air and act out the milking process would be correctly declared an idiot for the mere hope that milk could be obtained in this way.
I can see you romanticising trivial over-sitting, after all.
It's a pity...
you've either forgotten the word "exercise"...
>> it's too lazy to start again already.
Maybe I'm imagining things, but if I ask you about the weather tomorrow you'll reduce the conversation to a "trivial over-sitting".
Thank you, Vita, for your comment.
And the topic keeps getting more interesting :)
>> What's up, barada?