ForumSections

From theory to practice - page 804

New comment
Martin Cheguevara:
Why? 100-150% a year, or even half a year-8 months...
I thought it was 300, and that's a 100% risk.
Renat Akhtyamov:
I thought it was 300, and that's with a 100% risk.
No, the risk is 30% at most, and the average is about 2-5%.
Martin Cheguevara:
But what about the -$20 "hanging" on the max-equity and what to do? If I don't increase risks while my lot is the same and minimal, how else would I cover the -$20?
Miracles don't happen, there are not and won't be trending at least 20% of the markets. A maximum of 5% in securities...and that's a stretch...
As a matter of fact, year after year the percentage gets lower and lower.

That's fine.

For a long time in almost all the branches I have been writing about the first question - to work with drawdown, the third one - to determine approximately the direction of the entrance.

Of course, you are solving this problem wrong, judging by the content of your post. Don't ask for a hint, I won't give one anyway.

Martin Cheguevara:
Well, increasing the lot is not an option... I know all variants to solve this problem.
In principle, there are only three possible variants and the rest is all combinatorial)

strangely enough, but only one works.

The rest greatly reduces the profit.

Martin Cheguevara:
Breakeven does not always work)
and breakeven is nothing at all, a waste of time
Renat Akhtyamov:
and a break-even is nothing but a waste of time.

Why, a breakeven is also any profitable trade, not just a simple refund of the spread

aleger:

Why, a breakeven is also any profitable trade, not just a simple refund of the spread

in this context, I agree.
Martin Cheguevara:
А . I see ... of course I don't know how you solved the problem of leveling losses, but if you did and the solution is stable then that's really cool!)
I don't know about you, but I use distance variation as a risk control. The second variation is lot variation and the third variation is hard no loss and limitless loss.
Distance is the key to success because the distance travelled by price is an a posteriori event, increasing lots in the hope that price will pass the distance in any direction is a priori. In the first case the probability of event -100% in the second 50 to 50.

yes, I remember

you already wrote about it above

kish mish, break it down, at least mathematically solve the problem... from the end, so to speak.
Renat Akhtyamov:
in this context I agree

and therefore striving (in the end) to break-even is a very honourable task - almost like reaching the maximum possible profit!

aleger:

and therefore striving (in the end) to break-even is a very honourable task - almost like striving for the highest possible profit!

What difference does it make - the process is one and indissoluble! Approaches may be different, but it is a matter of what one is good at or how one can do it...

1...797798799800801802803804805806807808809810811...1981
New comment