NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 22
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
Andrew described the ideal case of swing! He's right in terms of swinging... ( of course he is rudely calling it nonsense )
...so he hasn't fully understood the logic of my layout
No, Yura, I translated the specific situation you described into a lock-free tactic.
Locked (described by you) would look like this:
Stand in buy, predict a pullback, action:
- Open a sell.
We stand in both buy and sell, predicting a continuation of the main movement, actions:
- Close the sell.
Andrei described a perfect case of swinging! in terms of swinging he's right... ( of course he is rudely calling it nonsense )
In any case, whether ideal or not, using a loc can be completely duplicated by closing a position with pending orders if the loc has stops/takes. And it will be cheaper than using a lock.
No, Yura, I translated the specific situation described into a lock-free tactic.
Locked (described by you) would look like this:
Stand in buy, predict a pullback, action:
- Open a sell.
We stand in both buy and sell, predicting a continuation of the main movement, actions:
- Close the sell.
Andrey, I also described the case when the trader "went to bed" or moved away - it doesn't matter.
thereby completely protecting the mid-term position
--
well, the case you described is quite acceptable, it's the same swing but without leaving the medium-term
and of course with the same result
--
logically, the pullback of the medium-term may be skipped and it usually does!
and then no one stops us from picking corrections... without leaving the medium term
this locus argument is quite acceptable
Andrey, look at my personal message
Either way, whether ideal or not, using a lock can be completely duplicated by closing a position with pending orders if the lock has stops/takes. And it will be cheaper than using a lock.
i think so too
i just do not rule out the loss as a tactic, i use it seldom.
Andrey, I also described a case where a tader "went to sleep" or retreated - it doesn't matter
thereby fully protecting the medium-term position.
What is the protection? And why cannot it be in a lock-free tactic?
Once again, any set of orders of a lockstep tactic can be repeated with SL, TP and pending orders.
With a result that will be just as good (the same or better).
What do the platform developers plan to do about this decision?
There will be no locks in MT5.
Once again, any set of orders from a lock tactic can be repeated using SL, TP and pending orders.
With a result that will be just as good (the same or better).
+1
There will be no locks in MT5.
What's ready yet? Where to sign up for testing?
...
I'm against locking within the same strategy (besides #1 and #2).
Again with the strategies...
*
OK, let's consider it as some kind of strategy. >> (although I personally consider it a tactic)
We eat a good trader, and we watch the MM. That is, we set stops based on acceptable losses.
Let's say we get 50 pips. We lose 2%.
In normal trading stop triggered, money lost...
What if... halfway through, we put a hold on half of the open position?
Counting...
1. We guessed the direction, the position went in profit, let all the rest be forgotten and deleted.
>> Gut.
2. Prices declined, the pending order was caught, but then it went in the right direction,
at the end, they took profit, though less.
Gut.
3. Prices have broken through the stop-loss. The put, or rather opposite one, was closed either at the stop level of the first one
or took a bit more on inertia... Gut?
Gut!!!
Why good? Because we optimize it according to the MM!
*
Another good thing, which is not noticeable, or just can not understand...
It is preservation of positions (toft), which I call "preservation of disposition".
of positions and orders...
With netting a position bites off a part of it forever!
While a temporary counter may take its place and after closing it we continue to hold
needed (the first one) to the full volume, until we hit the "shifft" at the next lock, or by placing a stopper at #3 in b\u
close the first one, thus safely turning around, and the maximum risk is a bust on the stop...