Im looking for more alternatives to no SL strategys.

Here a few examples of no SL strategys / trade management:  grid, martingale, zone recovery or hedging.
Im looking for more ideas or examples, smarter aporoaches wich have less risk.

I appreciate any idea, the goal is to comapre them all and See what statisticly makes the most sense (best odds)

Doest matter how crazy the idea seems, i would appreciate any Alternative or modifyed Version of the once i mentioned.

tho93:Im looking for more alternatives to no SL strategys. Here a few examples of no SL strategys / trade management:  grid, martingale, zone recovery or hedging. Im looking for more ideas or examples, smarter aporoaches wich have less risk.I appreciate any idea, the goal is to comapre them all and See what statisticly makes the most sense (best odds) Doest matter how crazy the idea seems, i would appreciate any Alternative or modifyed Version of the once i mentioned.

You will never find anything safer and simpler than a stop-loss. If you study the maths for the other methods like grids, martingales, recovery zones and whatnot; they are ALL convoluted forms of simply using a stop-loss, but with added complexity that hides risk, draw-down and adds to the trade costs.

The sooner you accept and understand this, the quicker you will be on your way to better and easier trading. Don't complicate something which is already so simple.

And yes, I know what I am talking about because I committed the same mistake. I too also followed the same foolish ideias of grids, martingales, etc. and it all failed. It took me a long time to accept and understand, and only when I finally started analysing the maths did it finally sink in what an idiot I had been, when the best and simplest way was already staring me in the face — the humble stop-loss.

Fernando Carreiro #:

You will never find anything safer and simpler than a stop-loss. If you study the maths for the other methods like grids, martingales, recovery zones and whatnot; they are ALL convoluted forms of simply using a stop-loss, but with added complexity that hides risk, draw-down and adds to the trade costs.

The sooner you accept and understand this, the quicker you will be on your way to better and easier trading. Don't complicate something which is already so simple.

And yes, I know what I am talking about because I committed the same mistake. I too also followed the same foolish ideias of grids, martingales, etc. and it all failed. It took me a long time to accept and understand, and only when I finally started analysing the maths did it finally sink in what an idiot I had been, when the best and simplest way was already staring me in the face — the humble stop-loss.

I would disagree, i still appreciate the advice, but not what i was asking for.

In the end it depends on your trading approach, hedging a loss and fixating the equity does make sense, becouse now you can look/wait for better prices and manage the loss without having to add more trades while the equity is fixed.

Again, it depends on your strategy, ofcurse it should be more Detailed then what i just mentioned but it does is smarter then just taking a loss (depending on strategy and risk tolerance), its not something that can just be regarded as worse.
It does indeed make sense depending on how you use it, it gives you the ability to be more Dynamic, which you dont have just with one SL.

I agree that just a SL might be the simplest way, but i disagree calling the other Methodes foolish ideas, worse or a waist of time.

I was asking for ideas for smarter alternatives by the way, also the goal doesnt necessary is to be longterm profitable with it, i mentioned what the goal is.

You could also go Gung Ho . Look for rare instances where a geometric scale-in would work . Small lots of-course cause this could explode on you.

Fernando Carreiro #:

You will never find anything safer and simpler than a stop-loss. If you study the maths for the other methods like grids, martingales, recovery zones and whatnot; they are ALL convoluted forms of simply using a stop-loss, but with added complexity that hides risk, draw-down and adds to the trade costs.

The sooner you accept and understand this, the quicker you will be on your way to better and easier trading. Don't complicate something which is already so simple.

And yes, I know what I am talking about because I committed the same mistake. I too also followed the same foolish ideias of grids, martingales, etc. and it all failed. It took me a long time to accept and understand, and only when I finally started analysing the maths did it finally sink in what an idiot I had been, when the best and simplest way was already staring me in the face — the humble stop-loss.

I agree. Trading without SL is like competing in a car race equipped with nitro but without brakes :)

tho93 #:

In the end it depends on your trading approach, hedging a loss and fixating the equity does make sense, becouse now you can look/wait for better prices and manage the loss without having to add more trades while the equity is fixed.

Again, it depends on your strategy, ofcurse it should be more Detailed then what i just mentioned but it does is smarter then just taking a loss (depending on strategy and risk tolerance), its not something that can just be regarded as worse.

Can you give one scenario where hedging while waiting for betrer prices is different than exiting while waiting for better prices?

Because once you hedge you are out, just paying more commissions and spreads

you cant expect low risk while trading a no sl strategy .. in matter of facts if you want this to work than it does but expect a huge DD and if you dont calculate the strategy using some backtesting tool to see how much the price moved within a year for example and set proper tp (and sl if you want to play it somewhat safe , using 8x time the tp as sl for example ) ,, not only that you might get huge DD but also your account is in risk of getting destroyd because market moves in a random manner .. goodluck anyway my friend

It's a beginners mistake to ask this question in the first place.

<Deleted as not relevant to the topic>

Always incorporate a stop loss into your trading strategy, If your strategy doesn't perform because of its stoploss, there is no edge. Another method of protecting yourself is a bit more dangerous and only truly legit if you've got steel nerves. That is to hedge your positions and close out the hedges manually when you see fit. This is quite advanced and will always cost you money one way or another.

I would like to point out to those that keep using the word "hedging", that true hedging involves placing trades on different symbols and on different markets so as to protect against unexpected turns on the original trade. That kind of "real" hedging is completely legitimate and very useful.

Hedging however, is not placing opposite orders on the same symbol. That is usually referred to "nedging" and is totally useless. It is equivalent to closing out a trade in a "netting" account.

As soon as you "nedge", you freeze your gain, just like closing out the trade, but end up paying more trade costs. And when you close one of the two opposite "nedged" trades, it is equivalent to placing a new trade had the original one been closed already. "Nedging" is totally useless. Do the maths.

Fernando Carreiro #:

I would like to point out to those that keep using the word "hedging", that true hedging involves placing trades on different symbols and on different markets so as to protect against unexpected turns on the original trade. That kind of "real" hedging is completely legitimate and very useful.

Hedging however, is not placing opposite orders on the same symbol. That is usually referred to "nedging" and is totally useless. It is equivalent to closing out a trade in a "netting" account.

As soon as you "nedge", you freeze your gain, just like closing out the trade, but end up paying more trade costs. And when you close one of the two opposite "nedged" trades, it is equivalent to placing a new trade had the original one been closed already. "Nedging" is totally useless. Do the maths.

Not quite, I try not to be dogmatic at these points.
Mathematically, it may be that open both sides of same symbol is equivalent to closing, but there are some advantages to that as well.

Those are mainly operational advantages, not mathematical. Meaning, it is easier to control two oposite positions which you can set for each it's own tp and sl - while it's difficult to do it in netting (which is one of the reasons MT5 opened the hedging option for accounts, while originally it was netting only).

This advantage also can be used in a scenario where you have two strategies for same symbol, one is long on a W1 chart, while the other is short on an H1 chart.

Amir Yacoby #: Not quite, I try not to be dogmatic at these points. Mathematically, it may be that open both sides of same symbol is equivalent to closing, but there are some advantages to that as well. Those are mainly operational advantages, not mathematical. Meaning, it is easier to control two oposite positions which you can set for each it's own tp and sl - while it's difficult to do it in netting (which is one of the reasons MT5 opened the hedging option for accounts, while originally it was netting only).

This advantage also can be used in a scenario where you have two strategies for same symbol, one is long on a W1 chart, while the other is short on an H1 chart.

That is the only reason for it, but that is something entirely different where there is two strategies or two EAs and that is not called "nedging".

For a single strategy or single EA, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to "nedge", not even for operational reasons. A stop-loss or take-profit on an existing position is equivalent to an indirect pending stop order. You can easily use pending orders instead of "nedged" positions and will save you on trading costs (spread, commission and swaps). For EAS, there is also no need to use pending orders (most of the time, except for specific situations) — just monitor the price quotes and react accordingly with market orders.

No matter how you look at it, be it from a trading perspective, a mathematical perspective or an operational perspective, "nedging" ALWAYS comes out at a disadvantage. Adjust your mind-set, look at over it again with a fresh perspective, and you will ALWAYS find it better and easier to use the direct approach.

"Nedging" is BAD, plain and simple! And, no I am not being dogmatic! Just over-stating the obvious, to get the point across.

EDIT: There is also one other situation where a temporary "nedge" is helpful, and that is to "freeze" gains when implementing a "Close By" of multiple open positions in the same direction, but that only lasts a moment and does not increase trading costs. It is also something different and not considered "nedging".