one thing i failed to mention was that when calculating your 2 to 1 minumum ratio calculate it from the retracement level to the 100% level not the 161.8. So the numbers i have calculated only apply to getting back to the 100% level
What's your TP? Fixed reward vs dynamic reward 5 replies
Precision, low-risk entries for discretionary systems. 36 replies
Pure Risk to reward trade System - 1 to 3- Totally random entries 178 replies
Rationale behind "Risk Per Trade" and "Risk/Reward Ratio"? 8 replies
Risk Reward Ratio and Account Risk 30 replies
Disliked{quote} How about this (idea borrowed from someone else): put on a position, when in profit add to your position (at an appropriate point, ideally a setup in and of itself) risking your usual risk plus the entire "paper" profits of the initial position. SL will stop out your entire position. If stopped out on this new position you lose your usual risk (1R), if the trade goes in your favour you have a much larger position on. And you can do this multiple times over the course of a single overall "position", e.g. in a swing trade. That's aggressive...Ignored
DislikedRemember that your stoploss is how you calculate your lot size according to how much money you have in your account.Ignored
Dislikedwith 1% risk and a smaller stop the second trade size is larger than the first and the third would be larger than the second.Ignored
DislikedI load first position in a falling knife style method. Wining trades typically enter near the extreme (high or low). I double up on these, where would one normally enter first load, ie when price shows signs of reversal. Trying to keep total risk constant. If trade does not behave, no additions. It works well. So I have risk 5% of account but effective position as if 10% risk. Then pray to any god that listens.Ignored
Disliked{quote} The R:R and, more importantly the expectancy, only increase if it is safe to trail the SL to BE. Too early and you risk getting a loser and a BE instead of a winner. Too late and it defeats the idea of doubling the lot size. The problem is that if the 2nd entry is stopped out the R:R decreases by one unit and the result is worse than "set and forget" your trade. Because you will always have such losers from time to time, the average R:R decreases by something between 0 and 1 (the probability of this event to happen).Ignored
DislikedAs has been discussed in other threads, pyramiding is nothing more than a collection of individual trades. Stacking another trade on top of an already existing trade does not change the dynamics of your exposure as opposed to closing original trade and opening a new trade of larger position size. In a hypothetical scenario of all things being equal, risk is proportional to reward.Ignored
Disliked2 things i really love about FF: a) OP starts a thread before he's ready and then simply leaves it hanging b) thread replies start flowing and then random charts are posted in spite of the OP not actually laying down wot he wants to discussIgnored
Disliked{quote} {quote} Nothing more to add. I could not explain it better. Pyramiding and Martingaling is useless - as long you use it as this type of market entry cause EVERY ENTRY is an individual position. I just tested the "myth" of pyramiding and "big" gains. Yes, it happens BUT: Imagine this: Entry LONG: 13000 13010 13020 13030 13040 ->avg. 13020, you trail SL to 13020 for BE. Well...the problem is that you know get statistically more stopped out as BE would be at 13000 (original entry) and guess what ?... The amount of get stopped out at BE...Ignored
Disliked{quote} The R:R and, more importantly the expectancy, only increase if it is safe to trail the SL to BE. Too early and you risk getting a loser and a BE instead of a winner. Too late and it defeats the idea of doubling the lot size. The problem is that if the 2nd entry is stopped out the R:R decreases by one unit and the result is worse than "set and forget" your trade. Because you will always have such losers from time to time, the average R:R decreases by something between 0 and 1 (the probability of this event to happen). This would not be...Ignored
Disliked{quote} If feel really ashame posting this request but... may you please post a naked chart? There are lines and arrows all over the place and I'm totally unable to see where and when the entries have been open/closed. I'd like to see the price AND the time with original SL, and TP if the trade is closed. I agree with your post right after I really depends on all the possible scenarii and their unknown probabilities. This is why it is very hard to objectively validate if it is a good idea or not.Ignored
Disliked{quote} Don't throw the baby with the bath water. Gridding every 10 pips is clearly wrong because the positions are all almost at the same price and the BE point follows you too tight. But buying the dips of an up trend .... Is it better to add and wait the target or let only the 1st trade run and take profit on each subsequent inner swings? Which one is (statistically) the best plan given that you cannot know beforehand that the trend will indeed be a trend? (if you can please start a thread!!) {image}Ignored
Disliked{quote} Thanks for the hint. Yes, you are right I always test it only on gridding in...(used different grids of pips).Ignored
DislikedI will take a look on backtest using this entry method of waiting for consolidation - but it's harder to program.Ignored
DislikedIs it better to add and wait...or only 1st trade ? Well, you or another made (yes, it was 2+2=4ex) just answered it before. It depens on expecancy on every single trade. If you take all dips, too then you just average all expectancies of all different entrys. If you only take initial position you only get this expectancy - but you know that - was this the question ?Ignored
DislikedAs has been discussed in other threads, pyramiding is nothing more than a collection of individual trades. Stacking another trade on top of an already existing trade does not change the dynamics of your exposure as opposed to closing original trade and opening a new trade of larger position size. In a hypothetical scenario of all things being equal, risk is proportional to reward. Of course not all things are equal in the real market. Your success will depend on finding these inequalities (also known as inefficiencies) and then exploiting them....Ignored