[Archive] Learn how to make money villagers! - page 408
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
Man, I'm telling you: the base has to be profitable.
It's a secondary matter to hang the gadgets on it.
Here's a partial close of the drawdown of the bays. Covered the first and last orders
Balance picture at this time
There is an indicator byVinin that can be used as a filter to change the parameters...)
Here's a partial close of the drawdown of the bays. Covered the first and last orders
Balance picture at this time
It's not without its bloopers either. In order to cover one old buy on a short distance, we need a giant-sized sell.
When you reverse, it will interfere with the closing level of the bundle of bays in b/c will be very far.
I agree, but there is one little nuance that I am not ready to talk about yet, I want to check it in action first.
I can simply give you a direction where to dig, draw losing orders on a piece of paper, draw a lot order,
Look at the volumes and you will immediately understand in what direction you need to dig.
Here's a partial close of the drawdown of the bays. Covered the first and last orders
Balance picture at this time
Like this
What if, from the very beginning of the grid creation, we take as the basis not the closing by the total profit, but only the first and the last overlapped positions?
Think simply, the owl should catch any orders in any direction and it should know what to do with them,
You don't need to complicate the task, you need to strive to simplify it. At the moment I have given up locking by % loss, because it is a very complicated system.
It is easier to use the number of open orders. This way it is easier to lock.
Thus, we obtain full locking with partial closing.
If you think simply, the owl should catch any orders in any direction and it should know what to do with them,
You don't need to complicate the task, you need to strive to simplify it. At the moment I have given up locking by % loss, because it is a very complicated system.
It is easier to use the number of open orders. This way it is easier to lock.
Thus, we obtain full locking with partial closing.
It does not matter what the protection threshold is, by loss or by a number of positions.
I do not know where else the locks should go. If we cover the first and the last one, then the remaining sells in minus should be deleted somewhere if reversal occurs.
... This is not about taking a profit, although it may be. It's about minimising losses on a given series. Better to get -150 quid on the depo than minus 1000....
Still, I don't see any loss minimisation yet. Positions do not build up further, yes, because they are locked in. But also a losing pack goes further into minus, don't forget. And that means the take to close it in b/o remains farther and farther away.
In other words, why to increase the lots, if we can do nothing and save on spreads. We won't see any profit from lots anyway.)