Who trades on the Live LAVINA system? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY LOSSES? - page 27

 
sever30:


One, Two Freddy's coming for you,
Three, Four, better lock your door,
Five, Six, grab your crucifix,
Seven, Eight, gonna stay up late,
Nine, Ten never sleep again...

-Freddy Krueger's tune in A Nightmare on Elm Street


Every generation has been fascinated by its own films as a child.

Of all the arts, the most important is cinema... about Godzilla .

 
PPC:


Of all the arts, the most important is cinema... About Godzila (variations on Lenin's theme)


Here, you're probably trying to humor... you see, it's not working either... today's the day...

 
sever30:
There, and you're probably trying to humour.
then I'll be humouring! :)) - 03Jan2000 - 1 Feb2009=118k

sever30:
it' s kind of a day...

really, day two test is not over, i'm swearing and optimizing in the second terminal
 
IgorM:
then I'll humour you! :)) - 1 Feb2009=118k


really, day two test is not over, i'm swearing and optimizing in the second terminal

Good luck Igor, you deserve a good robot (and so do I), although I don't fully understand what you're doing, apart from locking losses asymmetrically. I don't understand why you (not me :)) have lock and not netting...

 
sever30:

Good luck Igor, you deserve a good robot (and so do I), although I don't fully understand what you're doing, apart from locking losses asymmetrically. I don't understand why you (not me :)) have lock and not netting...


well at least because i am not an economist and only thanks to the wiki i learned this tricky word

I just understand that if you don't stop losing, i.e. do not close anything (neither profit nor loss), you can move out, even if the balance is negative, due to equity (when I started writing this EA, I had a case in the tester - balance -5k and equity +20k - I forgot to stop locking)

When I was testing, the hardest moment was 23.08.2008 when price broke through 1.55, then went back to 1.54 and then to 1.56 again, then... - But my system survived, it was the only sector where the lock turned over 3 times (it hasn't happened anymore) - it is possible to roll over more times, because I lock with one and the same volume, which is 1/4 of the total volume of all orders in the market before the lock so the rollover will overlap the locking orders

So it's like this: http://imglink.ru/pictures/14-09-10/ee818aa32845fa72cd50a1682ecd96f3.jpg this is the hardest moment of all time

 
sever30:

Good luck Igor, you deserve a good robot (and so do I), although I don't fully understand what you're doing, apart from locking losses asymmetrically. I don't understand why you (not me:)) have lock and not netting...

Lock, although it requires more collateral, has advantages compared to netting.
 
khorosh:
Local, although it requires a lot of collateral, has advantages over netting.

explain... because I can't understand Igor (it's not him, it's me)
 
sever30:

I don't understand what Igor is talking about (it's not him, it's me).

Open Sell 1 lot, if there is a netting on a reversal, close Sell, open Buy 2 lots. Whatever happens next, the loss of 1 lot from the sell is already fixed. If we use the lot, in a similar situation, after the opening of a Sell position we open a Buy position of 3 lots. And here is the tricky part. If the buy position received some profit, but the total profit has not yet reached the calculated value, at which both positions are closed, and the price has turned around again, we have an opportunity to close the buy without loss. And if the price continues to go down, we can close the sell with the planned profit (in netting this sell has showed a loss at once), if it has not happened, and the price turned around again we have an opportunity to again set the locking buy (without a loss so far), and so on.

Thus the lock gives more freedom for maneuvering, without a loss.

 
khorosh:

Open Sell 1 lot, if there is a netting on a reversal, close Sell, open Buy 2 lots. Whatever happens next, the loss of 1 lot from the sell is already fixed. If we use the lot, in a similar situation, after the opening of a Sell position we open a Buy position of 3 lots. And here is the tricky part. If the buy position received some profit, but the total profit has not yet reached the calculated value, at which both positions are closed, and the price has turned around again, we have an opportunity to close the buy without loss. And if the price continues to go down, we can close the sell with the planned profit (in netting this sell has showed a loss at once), if it has not happened, and the price turned around again we have an opportunity to again set the locking buy (without a loss so far), and so on.

Thus lock gives more freedom for maneuvering, without losses.

From a mathematical point of view you are not there, you are not seen on the server.
 
Tantrik:
From a mathematical point of view you are not there, you are not seen on the server.
Yes, I understand that from a mathematical point of view, netting is more profitable, but lock gives more tactical possibilities to close an aggregate position at a profit. When the mathematicians give the proof, it doesn't take into account the usability and tactical subtleties of the aggregate position.
Reason: