Counter positions: self-deception or subtle tool? - page 7
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
Нетто: 300+166*2+167*2+365*2=1696
If we then go in with a doubled lot, why is the first single?
Let's double it too.
Clear error in arithmetic as it is obvious that the total length of the yellow zigzag is greater than the red one.
Not a mistake - you forgot something ;)... Arithmetic rules......
Picture and objects are a bit "floating", but in general it is a fine splash.
It is not a question of scribbling out every item and reporting it to the tax office, the point of contention is another: to be locked or not.
well then the result is the same 1696p.
Any lot sequence of trades can be rewritten to netting. The difference is in margin (more is used in locks) and swaps. And in convenience of programming. If we use netting form it is more uncomfortable because we will have to write for some systems identification of their positions in case of trading on one account of several systems.
well then the result is the same 1696p.
Any lot sequence of trades can be rewritten to netting.
On history, yes.
Why is the first lot single, subsequent lots -- doubled?
I call it "fitting", or "peeking back".
Any lot sequence of trades can be rewritten to netting.
If we then go in with a doubled lot, why is the first single?
Let's double it as well.
Because there was only a 0.1 sell. Where it was double, it was net 0.2
This has already been discussed. Not any.
cite where it's proven
VladislavVG it is not clear who you are proving what to, and why.
This topic has been discussed more than once.
because the first lot only had a 0.1 sell. Where the two times was net 0.2.
On a story where you can see everything, yes. And if the result is not known in advance?
And if I run a third TS, will you recalculate and rewrite it with tripled lots?
That's not fair. Because you don't know in advance the number of points collected.
I call it "fitting," or "peeking back"