Do you have any tactics for dealing with the loca? - page 39
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
There is still the problem of coding the universal execution unit which doesn't care how many and what volumes signals from the analytical unit come (I can't yet comprehend 50 open (OK Timbo, don't get mad, sold/bought) positions. It's like realising the infinity of the universe, at this stage at least.
There's no problem at all. You've already opened/closed according to some rules/signals, so you keep working by them. You get a buy signal - you buy, sell signal - you sell. Don't open - close long - short. In your example:
You opened short as there was a sell signal. Then you opened a long one, as there was a buy signal. You got the lock. You should have closed. Later, you closed the short one, i.e. there was a buy signal, then you closed the long one, i.e. there was a sell signal. So why bother yourself with lots, with extra margin, with swaps, when you can simply follow your own signals as they come: sell-buy-buy-sold - it's easier and cheaper.
So he needs 300 pips of profit for balance!
If I understand correctly, what Alexei wants.
He probably knows about balance and equity as well as we do.
Yeah, that's right. Balance is nothing, equity is everything.
In principle, the criterion for equivalence of different systems on netting and nonnetting should be the equality of equities at any given time. And nothing else. Right?
I'm just confused by the devil - or rather by MT4.
........... I won't take any more, so as not to ruin my brain for good........
:)
Thank you. I'll have a look.
timbo:
There's no problem at all. You've already opened/closed according to some rules/signals, so you keep working by them. You get a buy signal - you buy, sell signal - you sell. Don't open - close long - short. In your example:
You opened short as there was a sell signal. Then you opened a long one, as there was a buy signal. You got the lock. You should have closed. Later, you closed the short one, i.e. there was a buy signal, then you closed the long one, i.e. there was a sell signal. So why bother yourself with lots, with additional margin, with swaps, when you can just follow your own signals as they come: sell-buy-buy-sold - it's easier and cheaper.
Yeah, no problem. It's just unusual.
Yeah, that's right. Balance is nothing, equity is everything.
In principle, the criterion for equivalence of different systems on netting and non-netting should be exactly equality of equities at any given time. And nothing else. Right?
I'm just confused by the devil - or rather by MT4.
The balance sheet grows faster than the loss - equity grows!!!
I figured that if the TS was converted to netting, things would be a lot cooler.... So, the conversation on this topic didn't go to waste for me... All spb...
Yeah, that's right. Balance is nothing, equity is everything.
In principle, the criterion for equivalence of different systems on netting and nonnetting should be the equality of equity at any given time. And nothing else. Right?
I'm just confused by the devil - or rather by MT4.
Did I understand correctly that it took you several years, a lot of people with some inhuman patience to explain to you personally, so that you finally understood what lock is ?
And after that you write that you are confused by MT4?
I'm afraid to imagine what kind of senility you have in your head about other things.
The phrase "Balance is nothing, equity is everything" has become an axiom for many. Repeating it every time, they zombify themselves and those around them. What was the reason for its appearance?
Some systems, when tested, demonstrated a growing balance curve, but the equity curve went down or the balance curve went down, but the equity curve went up. There are other systems that, when tested, show a rise in the balance curve and a rise in the equity curve.
Equity consists of 2 components: Balance and Profit. The first component, Balance, changes depending on the trader's actions, i.e. it is under our control.
The second component - the Profit - changes under the influence of the market. If the Balance component influence is greater than the absolute Profit value, the account is managed by the trader.
Recall the formula Recovery Factor = (Current Balance - Starting Balance) / Maximum Drawdown
or in other words
Recovery Factor = (Current Balance - Starting Balance) / Maximum Absolute Profit
If the ratio is higher than 1, then the account is managed by the trader. If the ratio is less than 1, the account is managed by the market and depends on its movements.
In other words, if the recovery Factor curve rises, the influence of the Balance is greater, if it falls, it is less...
I hope I have convinced you of the importance of the Balance value.
The phrase "Balance is nothing, equity is everything" has become an axiom for many. Repeating it every time, they zombify themselves and those around them. What was the reason for its appearance?
There are systems that when tested, the Balance curve increases but the Equity curve decreases or, the Balance curve decreases but the Equity curve increases. There are other systems which, when tested, show an increase in the balance curve and an increase in the equity curve.
Equity consists of 2 components: Balance and Profit. The first component, Balance, changes depending on the trader's actions, i.e. it is under our control.
The second component - the Profit - changes under the influence of the market. If the Balance component influence is greater than the absolute Profit value, the account is managed by the trader.
Recall the formula Recovery Factor = (Current Balance - Starting Balance) / Maximum Drawdown
or more accurately
Recovery Factor = (Current Balance - Starting Balance) / Maximum Absolute Profit
If the ratio is higher than 1, the account is managed by the trader. If the coefficient is less than 1, the account is managed by the market and depends on its changes.
In other words, if the Recovery Factor curve rises, the impact of the Balance is greater, if it falls, the impact is less...
I hope I convinced you of the importance of the Balance value.
I hope I have convinced you of the importance of Balance.
rather ridiculous.
It does not matter how it is called profit/loss, as long as it is clear what it is about.... I focused on the maximum absolute value of profit, i.e. profit can be both more than 0 and less than 0. If the profit is more than 0 and the balance falls, then such an TS depends on market changes, e.g. a gap and no SL will not save from losing the deposit.
As for Niroba or the example shown by Reshetov, then do you bother to use the Recovery Factor formula presented and see if they satisfy the same single condition: Restoration Factor is greater than 1. And then express your scepticism...
It does not matter how it is called profit/loss, as long as it is clear what it is about.... I focused on the maximum absolute value of profit, i.e. profit can be both more than 0 and less than 0. If the profit is more than 0 and the balance falls, then such an TS depends on market changes, e.g. a gap and no SL will not save from losing the deposit.
As for Niroba or the example shown by Reshetov, then do you bother to use the Recovery Factor formula presented and see if they satisfy the same single condition: Restoration Factor is greater than 1. And then express your scepticism...