Which prevents the advisor from making money. - 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
Buffett, the loon, is working without stops, obviously.
It's not obvious that without stops it's bad.
the higher the amount, the less allowable drawdown for me.
Can you tell me which formula to use to calculate the dependence of risk on the deposit. So that the risk decreases nonlinearly with the growth of the deposit, in accordance with the given coefficient?
The simplest option: risk = coefficient * root (depo).
Alexey, thank you. And I am sitting here racking my brains - I will definitely try it.
Only it's probably not quite...
how do you turn it upside down? I'll draw it.
It's something like this. That's me rotating the cotangent and reflecting it. How do you do it mathematically?
If the point of intersection with the axis is the starting risk, and then the coefficient can be added.
Well, like this, for example (if we assume that the asymptote from above is y=1):
if x>=0, then 0.5 * exp(-Ax)
otherwise 1 - 0.5 * exp(Ah).
Just don't say it's not a function. It's a real function, even differentiable at zero.
There are more variants, but this is one of the simplest.
There are other options, but this is one of the easiest.
And if you take, for example, y = 1/x (risk = 1/deposit), and shift the starting risk point to the required value at the expense of the coefficient.
For example, starting risk = 5, starting deposit is known. Instead of 1, let's add coefficient to fit the expression and use this coefficient in our further work.
risk = k/deposit
Example: risk = 5, deposit = 10000;
k = 5*10000; we have 50000.
Then if the deposit grows to e.g. 15000 we obtain the risk equal to 3.3, and at 50 00000 the risk = 1.
Am I reasoning correctly?
Isn't the risk reduced too steeply?
Every time I see the title of the topic "What keeps an EA from making money" I get the urge to say the word Forex.
And now I'm tempted...
Damn this forex with its universal conspiracy ))))
Another blowout?
Isn't the risk being reduced too steeply?
I don't know, you tell me. I think it should decrease in proportion to the root of the deposit. This will allow to gradually increase the volume of open positions - but not so much as to repeat the risk that is acceptable with the smallest deposits.
At 1/x risk, the volume of positions simply will not grow. Do you need this?