The appropriateness of using Take Profit and Stop Loss in automated TS.
It is suggested that we briefly discuss the subject. I have been puzzling over this question for a long time and have not been able to draw the "right" motivated conclusions for myself.
----------
On the one hand their use in the optimizer allows to improve system's performance, but on the other hand it has something to do with further system's behavior in the future (I don't take scalpers without stops and TPs)? Then if using takeprofit can be justified from a mathematical point of view, then there is no justification for using stoploss. "Brakes were invented by cowards!")
----------cnjg
For some time I used systems with only TakeProfit following the price and squeezing to it in case of undesirable price movement (a kind of a noose with take profit triggered on pullbacks). The stop was set far away and its triggering was actually avoided - to control it and in case of connection interruption to save the deposit.
----------
Lately I try to develop systems that do not need stop and takeoffs, only a controlling function. The system lives with the market and tries to have its "opinion" on any situation and at any time it gives one of 4 signals (two to close positions, two to open). I think a "proper" system should act like that, and take-backs and stops are a relic of "manual" trading. However, something is eating me... Am I giving up something useful and meaningless? I am interested in your opinions, colleagues, maybe some links or ideas.
Stop!
I think you're wrong about their disappearance - in the absence of a stop, there is a forced stop, called a margin call - MK, for the "fearless" ---
---
example:
you have a 10k depo.
You at 1.6 you buy with 1.0 lot and leverage 100 - you don't have a stop!
now the level is conditionally 1.36 ...
your deposit has long been closed by the MC at 1.5
You don't risk it, you don't drink Margin-Cola! :))
"Margin-Cola is a drink for real troublemakers! :))
"Margin-Cola - always available from the XYZ network 24x7x365 :))
Figar0, basically if your system is based on an indirector that guarantees that price won't move against you by an unacceptable distance in too short a time, then this approach about the stop is justified. That is, an indicator must be sensitive enough. But its sensitivity is usually correlated with a lot of false signals.
I would argue with your "mathematical point of view" regarding the take: with some diversification, the multi-currency allows you not to think too much about a hard, limiting take.
But generally speaking, the problem statement itself is very much worth considering. A system with such characteristics is top class.
Alexey, hi!
I've thrown a question to you on the small forum in your thread. Answer it when you have time.
Figar0, in principle if your system is based on an indication, which guarantees that the price will not move against you by an unacceptable distance in too short a time, then this approach about the stop is justified. That is, an indicator must be sensitive enough. But its sensitivity is usually correlated with a large number of false signals.
But I would argue with your "mathematical point of view" about the take: a multicurrency allows with some diversification not to think too much about a hard, limiting take.
Alexei! If the author says that he just doesn't put stops ON THE MARKET!
and stops as they say in the "head" then the question is different!
Yes, Sergei, I will answer as soon as I get access from home - or when I get back to work after my illness.
Stops!
I think you are wrong about their disapproval - in the absence of a stop, there is a forced stop, called a margin call - MK, for the "fearless".
I don't mind stops and takeovers, but they should be of nominal nature to protect the securities, they will not allow MC, and losses will not exceed a tolerable level. I meant that a proper system should work without them, not to trigger them. The triggering of any of stop Takes is Force Majeure, but it is not a component part of the system, as we often see in the example of good 90% of CodeBase Expert Advisors.
For example:
| Login | : 1115408 |
| Investor | : zpf1viu |
Server: demo.metaquotes.net:443
Not the most telling example, this demo is working out quite different, but what's at hand, and in this case not the point. There are no stops and takeaways, demo MK I'm not afraid)
Lately I try to develop systems that do not need stops and takeovers, only a control function. The system lives with the market and tries to have its "opinion" on any situation and at any time it gives one of 4 signals (two to close positions, two to open). I think a "correct" system should act like that, and take and stop is a relic of "manual" trading. However, something is eating me... Am I giving up something useful and meaningless? I'm interested in your opinions, colleagues, maybe some links or ideas.
Good thinking... I don't recommend giving up the stop and the TP...
a stop is needed in case of a breakdown... basically, stoploss should replace your control function.... And the take is an opportunity to get more before the control function says it's time to close...
It is suggested that we briefly discuss the subject. I have been puzzling over this question for a long time and have not been able to draw the "right" motivated conclusions for myself.
----------
IMHO.
A stop is needed even if the TC provides for everything, at least a technical one, in case of a breakdown. Take -- depends on the TS. Both can be an integral part of the algorithm.
I am probably confusing everyone), technical stops and takeovers are of course necessary. Perhaps, I wanted to know something else: may the ability of a system to work profitably without take and stop be a measure of its performance? The use of stops and take as part of a system, although it allows improving the system performance in some cases, in fact, only deludes us concerning the robustness of a system. My point is this.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
It is suggested that we briefly discuss the subject. I have been puzzling over this question for a long time and have not been able to draw the "right" motivated conclusions for myself.
----------
On the one hand their use in the optimizer allows to improve system's performance, but on the other hand it has something to do with further system's behavior in the future (I don't take scalpers without stops and TPs)? Then if using takeprofit can be justified from a mathematical point of view, then there is no justification for using stoploss. "Brakes were invented by cowards!")
----------
For some time I used systems with only Take Profit following the price and squeezing it in case of undesirable action (like a "TP", triggering on pullbacks). The stop was set far away and its triggering was actually avoided - just to control it and in case of connection failure to save deposit.
----------
Lately I try to develop systems that do not need stop and takeoffs, only a controlling function. The system lives with the market and tries to have its "opinion" on any situation and at any time it gives one of 4 signals (two to close positions, two to open). I think a "proper" system should act like that, and take-backs and stops are a relic of "manual" trading. However, something is eating me... Am I giving up something useful and meaningless? I am interested in your opinions, colleagues, maybe some links or ideas.