How is the viability of a trade idea determined? - page 2
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
Yep... 3 years on MN1
The choice of the main chart is at the Trader's discretion...
In my experience, more than a daily chart, the "total number of trades" indicator drops dramatically, which is perceived negatively by most traders...
You think these are such scary conditions for nothing...
Interested in the end result, does your strategy work live?
Interested in the end result, does your strategy work live?
In my opinion, and I see that my colleagues agree on this point too, the key feature of a promising trading system is that it must provide good entry points. It may be mixed up with bad points, but the good ones should be as well. Here we should define what I mean by a good entry point.
A good entry point is a point in time after which the price is more likely to move in the profitable direction than in the unprofitable one. It may not happen immediately or within a few minutes after opening a trade. The main thing is that the price either stopped in this point that should not lead to a loss. Or it can start and continue moving in the profitable direction. This movement should be enough to take profit or at least to bring the transaction to Breakeven.
Thus, the entry point at least requires us to have criteria for its evaluation. How do we find out if an entry point is good? We should set equal distances from it to stop and take profit. Equal - because it is important to ensure that the price has the same amount of points to move to close at Take or Stop. Otherwise, we will not be able to check that the entry point actually increases the probability of a good trade. For example, if the path to take is half as long as the path to stop, then on random entries the take is bound to trigger more often. However, this does not mean that the entry point is good. Take in this example is closer and just easier to reach. And if distances are equal, it seems to me that it is quality of entry point that will play the role in this case.
And of course it is impossible to estimate the quality of an entry point if the stop is not set at all. Because if take profit is only set and it worked, it can also mean that price went first to the losing side, passed some TP distance in the losing direction and returned. That is, such an entry point is not good and systems without stops should not be considered. I also join the opinion that we should not consider grids, martins and intermediaries as these systems are not concerned about a good entry point but try to close it to the current market price using new orders. They can repay losses by adding lots.
What does the terminal have to do with it? I asked a specific question. Are you making money from your strategy by trading in the market and not by selling the strategy?
I am calm and friendly with you. You understand that in the tester it's one thing and then in reality it's another. That's why I wanted to know about the success in reality.
... I join the opinion that grids, martins and intermediaries should be discarded as well, because these systems are not concerned with a good entry point, but try to bring it closer to the current market price with new orders. They can repay losses by adding lots.
Nobody prevents you from being concerned). Just ran a test. A grid and a martin is used.
Nobody's stopping you from being concerned). Just ran a test. A grid and a martin are used.
And how do you check the quality of entry points on the grid and martin?