Diablo - page 17
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
Maybe the drawdown at this point was much more than 3000, i.e. on the verge of losing. The tester does not show the real equity drawdown.
Yes. Probably.
In general, assuming the market can take any... (I'll use the term) "patterns", then it can easily go in resonance with the TS at some parts. Hence the conclusion that any TS that has a finite set of rules is bound to be broken down by the market. And taking into account the well-known experience of neural networks and adaptive TS, we can say that any TS is not suitable for the market at all. So... a bit of realism into the rosy dreams of those gathered here. :)
... "patterns", then it can easily go into resonance with the TS in some areas. Hence the conclusion that any TS with a finite set of rules is bound to be disrupted by the market...
It doesn't work at all) You shouldn't, dear TC is denying the obvious.
I recommend to check for yourself and make sure my words are correct.
It's not that we close early, the price went one way to the end and even further, selected all orders, closed something. The price was not in the black and went further.
We do not know when the price will decide to go back and use the lower orders. Maybe, it will come back in a year. The fact that it will profit on the remaining orders is not a guarantee since it has "eaten" and lost profit on one side.
I meant the first 2 levels - the ones on both sides of the price. I must repeat, the price does not always move as we intended it, quite often it bumps out exactly those 2 orders at once before it moves in any direction.
In general, as I said before, there are a lot of price trajectory options, and it's all alchemy to try to predict its movement.
Agreed + 6 steps of net profit. As soon as the price goes back by half a step, this net profit will disappear because we have a row of orders that will overshoot dramatically. I.e. the total volume of the position becomes high enough, and any momentary move downwards kills all the profits gained on the root......
Please: the price passes through five levels without a pullback and returns by half a step. The fixed loss is -1 * 4 = -4 pips. The uncommitted loss on the fifth forward order is -0.5 pips. The profit on the straight orders at this point is +3.5 +2.5 +1.5 +0.5 = +8 steps. The profit from the fifth reversed order is equal to +0.5 steps. If we close all orders at this point, we get +8 +0.5 - 4 - 0.5 = +4 steps of net profit.
Do the math before you write anything.
Again the question is what condition is used to fix profits and open the next series of orders????
Yes. Probably.
In general, assuming the market can take any... (I'll use the term) "patterns", then it can easily go in resonance with the TS at some parts. Hence the conclusion that any TS that has a finite set of rules is bound to be broken down by the market. And taking into account the well-known experience of neural networks and adaptive TS, we can say that any TS is not suitable for the market at all. So... a bit of realism into the rosy dreams of those gathered here. :)
Theoretically, there is only one trajectory of price movement that can bring the balance to zero in case of wrong choice of lot. It is the movement strictly in one direction by the "Dragon" trajectory, i.e. the passage to the second level, then the roll to the first one, then the passage to the third level, then the roll to the second one, etc. If the price follows strictly this trajectory, never deviating from it, sooner or later the deposit will be nullified. As soon as the price reverses or at least two reverse level reversals (if the price moves in one direction) it will result in profit accrual.
Diablo itself is still profitable - it will pull the deposit to the plus at any prolonged "dragon", it just takes more time. But the wrong calculation of the lot may lead to the fact that the orders, to which the price has reached, there will be simply nothing to open. So we should not be greedy. This advice would also work for choosing the step between the orders.
Theoretically, there is one single price movement trajectory that can bring the balance to zero if the wrong lot is selected. It is a strictly one-way movement along the "dragon" trajectory, i.e. a pass to the second level, then a pullback to the first level, then a pass to the third level, then a pullback to the second level, etc. If the price follows strictly this trajectory, never deviating from it, sooner or later the deposit will be nullified. As soon as the price reverses or at least two reverse oscillations (when moving in one direction) occurs, the profit starts to increase inexorably.
Diablo itself is still profitable - it will pull the deposit to the plus at any prolonged "dragon", it just takes more time. But the wrong calculation of the lot may lead to the fact that the orders, to which the price has reached, there will be simply nothing to open. So we should not be greedy. This advice would also work for choosing the step between the orders.
I'm just surprised at your self-confidence. If you have written script code, is it too difficult to run it in tester and make sure there are 1000+1 such "dragons"?
Example in the studio.
Dak it's me who should ask you an example, you are the author after all) Initially, before proposing a TS, you should check all possible combinations.
I came across these immediately, on my second and third attempt at a test (each new grid set-up from the beginning of the next day). That was enough for me. And reproducing it again now I don't really see the point.
Dak it's me who should ask you an example, you are the author after all) Initially, before proposing a TS, you should check all possible combinations.
I came across these immediately, on my second and third attempt at a test (each new grid set-up from the beginning of the next day). That was enough for me. And I don't really see the point in reproducing it again now.