Counter positions: self-deception or subtle tool? - page 13
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
yes, the topic of locophilia or locophobia comes up year after year, and strangely enough :) someone will bring it up again in spring... and in the autumn .... Cycles may be influencing it :)
I'm amazed Vladislav has shown proof for so many times.
If the girl hadn't asked, I would have sent him to the old threads - but it's kind of embarrassing :))))))....
Good luck.
If you do it yourself, there should be no questions like the title of the branch, if you do it correctly (in terms of arithmetic).
But do I have to do it? It is more convenient to observe and analyse each axis separately, without reducing it to netting. The price for convenience is not great - the spread.
Well, that's the point, there's a gap.
The spread is both "+" and "-".
Anyway, let's get to the bottom of it.
At lock we have a spread loss of 20p on a red deal and 20p on a turquoise deal. In total 40 p.
With netting we have a loss of 20 p on the blue intermittent
So that's the point, there's a gap.
Oh, well.
So you're mistranslating - I suggested you figure it out for yourself: it's always more useful.
Good luck...
Yes, you are sworn ;) ..... :)))))))))))
VladislavVG:
Yes, you are sworn in ;) ..... :)))))))))))
I remember, I remember. :)
You don't seem to read what you write, don't talk rubbish into a girl's head with this nonsense.
What's so delusional about it? It's simple - in the proof you always forget to specify that at lots you can get profit from two possible ways, and at netting only one.
It is amazing that all calculations are reduced only to conversion strategy one to another, forgetting that at lots both strategies are possible.
What is the nonsense? All the same simple - in the proof always forget to specify that the lots profit can be obtained from the two possible ways, and netting - only one.
Surprisingly, all calculations are reduced only to converting one strategy to another, forgetting that at lots both strategies are possible.
I wonder about your lack of understanding of processes... strategies... Yeah ... that one strategy put up 10 deals (including lots) that netting 10 deals on the same strategy - the RESULT is the same ...
you have a washed out eye for position information display...
Close the counters by hand (exactly through "Close Counters" and not sequentially) or programmatically through OrderCloseBy() and there is no loss in spread.
Show in the figure from page 11 where the locker will do "Close counter"
that with one strategy you have placed 10 deals (including lots), that with netting 10 deals with the same strategy - the RESULT is the same...