It will go into minus until the averaging orders (on a pullback) take the series to the plus (profit total).
Well, there is no such thing. The condition of opening is as follows: if there was TakProfit, it means we open in the same direction. Based on this, a losing position can be closed using TakeProfit. I do not see any "averaging" in this condition.
The problem so far seems to be that "after TakeProfit triggers, we open in the direction of the closed profitable position. Thus, the drawdown is increasing:
Step 1: we open BUY and SELL positions simultaneously. Let's assume the price goes down. As a result, TakeProfit for the SELL position is triggered, which means we open a new SELL position. At the end of step 1 we have: a BUY position with a loss and a new SELL position.
There are two further possible outcomes in step 2: the price continues to go down, or the price turns around and goes up. The result is the same - we have a larger drawdown than at the end of step 1.
Vladimir Karputov: But there is no such thing. The condition for opening is as follows: if there was a TakeProfit, then we open in the same direction. Therefore, a losing position may be closed using TakeProfit. I do not see any "averaging" in this condition.
I see, I must have expressed myself incorrectly for TK.
Let's put it this way:
An order that is negative (opposite to a profitable one, opened simultaneously with it), it is the first in order in the hierarchy of averaging orders (the one with 0.01 lot) is closed in two cases:
1) by TP (we were in a negative position for a while, and we got profit).
2) Averaging by Martin type. (if we did not reach TP + conditions for averaging have developed. In short, I went into a big negative with subsequent pullbacks).
2) Averaging by martin type. (if you have not reached the TP + conditions for averaging have developed. In short, it went into a big negative with subsequent rollbacks).
Vladimir Karputov: A set of bukoffs. It's not clear yet.
Vladimir, have you ever written to Ilan? Surely, because everyone comes to him (then leaves).
I don't know how else to explain it simply. It's standard - floating minus in martin type averaging (or simply - martingale, aka Ilan) is derived, respectively, by adding positions in the same direction, but with a bigger lot. This is what the second point above is about.
This is also what the image in the topic, look at the graphical objects, which indicate the orders. How they work.
That's the problem - you speak in the language of your thoughts. I am asking specific questions - and as it turns out, if they are not answered precisely, the whole idea goes down the drain. For the third time, what is the condition when we MUST open a position on the side of an existing losing position?
the picture shows the algorithm of a very familiar EA, with one simple rule - do not average until the opposite order closes on the trawl - a long trawl is the same as a crossover, if we imagine that the sell closed not on TP but on the opposite crossover, ie the market itself should show us the point for averaging
Allow the use of cookies to log in to the MQL5.com website.
Please enable the necessary setting in your browser, otherwise you will not be able to log in.
You are signed in. Two-factor authentication has been disabled. Set it up again and scan a new QR code, or continue with two-factor authentication disabled.
Vladimir, not at all. Not really.
It will go into minus until the averaging orders (on a pullback) take the series to the plus (profit total).
The problem so far seems to be that "after TakeProfit triggers, we open in the direction of the closed profitable position. Thus, the drawdown is increasing:
Step 1: we open BUY and SELL positions simultaneously. Let's assume the price goes down. As a result, TakeProfit for the SELL position is triggered, which means we open a new SELL position. At the end of step 1 we have: a BUY position with a loss and a new SELL position.
There are two further possible outcomes in step 2: the price continues to go down, or the price turns around and goes up. The result is the same - we have a larger drawdown than at the end of step 1.
Explanations are good to give like this
You draw well. Is this some kind of program?
Explanation is good to put it like this
But there is no such thing. The condition for opening is as follows: if there was a TakeProfit, then we open in the same direction. Therefore, a losing position may be closed using TakeProfit. I do not see any "averaging" in this condition.
Let's put it this way:
An order that is negative (opposite to a profitable one, opened simultaneously with it), it is the first in order in the hierarchy of averaging orders (the one with 0.01 lot) is closed in two cases:
1) by TP (we were in a negative position for a while, and we got profit).
2) Averaging by Martin type. (if we did not reach TP + conditions for averaging have developed. In short, I went into a big negative with subsequent pullbacks).
***
2) Averaging by martin type. (if you have not reached the TP + conditions for averaging have developed. In short, it went into a big negative with subsequent rollbacks).
A set of bukoffs. It's not clear yet.
I don't know how else to explain it simply. It's standard - floating minus in martin type averaging (or simply - martingale, aka Ilan) is derived, respectively, by adding positions in the same direction, but with a bigger lot. This is what the second point above is about.
This is also what the image in the topic, look at the graphical objects, which indicate the orders. How they work.
That's the problem - you speak in the language of your thoughts. I am asking specific questions - and as it turns out, if they are not answered precisely, the whole idea goes down the drain. For the third time, what is the condition when we MUST open a position on the side of an existing losing position?
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
Damned Martin
Vladimir Karputov, 2017.01.18 11:30
1) 5 и 20. I wrote about it in the first post.
2) Watch the crossover on the last bar that closed. Yes, on the previous bar.
Sorry. Forgot to reply to this post.
1) 5 и 20. I wrote about this in the first post.
2) Watch the crossover on the last bar that closed. Yes, on the previous bar.
Intersection:
Right?