Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

Most Volatile & Crazy Month? 6 replies

Anyone try using XAU/USD - XAU/EUR as proxy for EUR/USD? 4 replies

The most volatile pairs? 5 replies

the most volatile instrument 4 replies

Most volatile over the long term? 0 replies

Attachments: Most volatile EU/GU/XAU/BTC trading
Exit Attachments

Most volatile EU/GU/XAU/BTC trading

Quoting ffpa
Guys i am designing tool for risk management of multiple positions. Main assumptions is i am used to lock loss ("hedge"). There is never ending debate about it. I do not intend and never did to martingale - just to clear this out. Simply there are obviously situations where SL is licked by price OR news events. I know that RyuRyu is locking losses ("hedging"). Are you still doing it ? I am doing it it is like a second nature to me. However maybe yoy can share your point of view. I only ask because i do not understand why there is so much emotions...
I'm not hedging anymore. I tried but failed. I think I failed because I didn't make real math for that. It is too complicated for me for now. But I'm sure it is possible.
I have made one bot for guys, it works this way: it open short on BTCUSDT and long on BTCBUSD (or same just on different accounts/subaccs). When price hit some level it open x2, change TPs and SLs and so on. I must say it works perfect. At least no problems since Summer at all. And as I know it works for them on forex for years already because initially they asked me to port it for crypto from forex. So hedging techniques works for sure we just need to me smarter than the ape to do it. But since I'm lazy asre and have no time for that I just don't use hedging anymore.

I'm using position building technique and deleverage approach. Position building is to add more to get better entry price, deleverage is to reduce position size not with static (or dynamic) take profit, but with really dynamic TPs using orderbook walls information. Remember English is not my native, so I don't know if word deleverage even exist and it is correct word for that, but I call it this way and I like how it sounds haha check: Deleverage Mode. Looks great haha

I found vol, distance, min price per lot most important for trading. In fact it even doesn't matter what first entry is and where you place it (don't tell anyone, let them try to find "best entry ever"). Since big players are doing exactly the same thing day by day I came to conclusion that it is better to trade with them against degen gamblers, not with dg against bp
Observer effect
Haha people so scary of me and they ban me from their "successful" threads proactively.


Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: screenshot.png Size: 7 KB

I'm talking about this thread: https://www.forexfactory.com/thread/...6-bollinger-ma

Haha, that is SOOOOo ffff funny

the thread has a name Bollinger and MA.

But hey, hey hey... bollinger IS MA already. So it must be called Moving average and Moving average?

What a bullshit

Next. That successful trader asking this

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: screenshot.png Size: 17 KB

I can't answer, because I'm not welcome in his thread, but I can say here.

Hey you, "successful trader", stochastic CAN't be used as support tool because it is OSCILLATOR!!!!

How the heck it is possible that person calling himself a trader, registered since 2017 (5 yeahs ago!!!) don't understand what oscillators DO?

Observer effect
Quoting RickM
{quote}now it seems they break those large orders up a bit and hit the market hard with smaller repetitive market orders.
On DOM surface there is a pattern - huge amount of separate small volumes at the same price, one after another - like a neklace.
Quoting RickM
{quote} I found you get so obsessed with trying to trade out of a hedge, you miss many A++ trades that would have paid far more.
100% true
Quoting ryuryu
{quote}. I'm using position building technique and deleverage approach. Position building is to add more to get better entry price, deleverage is to reduce position size not with static (or dynamic) take profit, but with really dynamic TPs using orderbook walls information.
I do exactly the same - both of them.

1 st is often called "averaging down" and is typically treated as a mistake. It is not a mistake, it is just distributing 1 ORDER into MANY PRICE LEVELS in the zone of interest.
2 nd is often called "scaling out" and is typically used by succesful traders.

The difference between my approach and yours is probably simple - you probably recognize better levels for these techniques based on orderflow.
I guess they meant "support" as a tool for suporting decision process, and not "support" as a tool producing support levels.

Generally i would not waste my time on discussion with indicator followers.
Quoting RickM
{quote} I should expand the story a bit.
Thank you for observations. I digest all your opinions.
These days, I generally don't average down because my data proves it not a great long term strategy. I do however think an additional trade as price starts to go in your favour can be beneficial to the profit result but that's just 1 trade occasionally.
Adding to a winning position is of course the gold mark in trading, that's really my objective when I open any position.

Lets look at my last weeks trading results time in trade as a measure. Bear in mind I am a manic scalper trading big lots for small points.

1% of my trades were over 30 minutes and just a longer play after breakouts.
2% of my trades were up to 30 Minutes
5% of my trades were up to 15 Minutes
33% of my trades were up to 5 Minutes
27% of my trades were up to 1 Minute
22% of my trades were up to 30 Seconds
10% of my trades were up to 15 Seconds

Therefore 59% of my trades last less than 1 minute, 33% of my trades are over 1 minute but less than 5 minutes.
Of the 59% of my trades, I hit 84% win rate on my trades - 10% are losses from 8 to 12 ticks and the last 6% of losing trades comes from trades I moved my stop.

"You moved your stop you fuckin idiot"

Yes, sorry it's because of being human and struggling with taking losses like most traders. Over half of the trades I ended up winning by moving the stop, but the losses were of course larger but not huge.

If I didn't move my stop, I would never have to be stupid enough to consider another averaging down my trade.
If I took my loss quick ALWAYS, I would be even more profitable than I am.

Therefore I rate my trading efforts last week a C+ because I moved my stops about 9 times, its a A+ if I never move it once.

Stop hedging and "man up" and take the bloody loss quick
Hedging is for fearful traders

PS. These comments are only related to scalpers on the intra-day markets and differ on the way I would trade the Day Chart.
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: time in trade.png Size: 16 KB
Trading thin liquidity at the boundary of the charts
Quoting RickM
I do however think an additional trade as price starts to go in your favour can be beneficial to the profit result but that's just 1 trade occasionally. Adding to a winning position is of course the gold mark in trading, that's really my objective when I open any position.
Adding has obvious logic behind it right, i hope. When I see current momentum is confirmed just what i do (1) original order to BE (2) place new order. I feel like I do not increase risk exposure with the same lot-size order, which is probably over-simplified statement.

Pepole would called it "scaling in". Still for me it is the same setup, the same interest zone, the same reson to trade. The same risk (not increased). It is the same 1 order with multiple entry levels.

As i previosuly suggested. I think that only Orderflow can provide information to execute it.
Quoting RickM
the last 6% of losing trades comes from trades I moved my stop.
There is always few leveles of some higher executed volume which protects your stop loss. Is it really a mistake to move stop loss if the first level does not work ? You still believe in the trade and mostly you are right. You are right to move SL (42/42+6) - 87%.

I am not advocating movig SL, but if the orderflow is STILL by your side, than maybe it is justified.

In other words imagine i enter when there is a cross of 2 moving averages and i place a SL. Imagine scenario that SL is going to be hit but the cross is still valid, because there was no opposite cross. (it is just example to see the idea). Should I say the SL should be hit because i misjudged ENTRY level ? OR should i say SL should be moved because i misjudged SL level ?

I am just saying - your stats say that (1) 87% times you were right to move SL and was rewarder for that (ENTRY was correct, SL was not correct), (2) 13% times you were wrong and was punished for that (ENTRY was not correct, SL was not correct). I exclude scenarios of 42% of wiinings where ENTRY and SL was correct. I only refer to scenarios where SL was moved.
Quoting ffpa
{quote} Adding has obvious logic behind it right, i hope. When I see current momentum is confirmed just what i do (1) original order to BE (2) place new order. I feel like I do not increase risk exposure with the same lot-size order, which is probably over-simplified statement. Pepole would called it "scaling in". Still for me it is the same setup, the same interest zone, the same reson to trade. The same risk (not increased). It is the same 1 order with multiple entry levels. As i previosuly suggested. I think that only Orderflow can provide information...
If we can stay in a position with stop at BE, add additional trades at each vacuum point with total obsessive belief that the trend is being supported by Orderflow signals, you will be the most profitable retail trader on Forex Factory by a long way.
Trading thin liquidity at the boundary of the charts
Quoting RickM
{quote} If we can stay in a position with stop at BE, add additional trades at each vacuum point with total obsessive belief that the trend is being supported by Orderflow signals, you will be the most profitable retail trader on Forex Factory by a long way.
I will try to describe it with pictures - when next such scenarios will appear. Because i do not know what I do At some point I close with profit original trade to cover risk for additional trades. I do not believe in trend developing from original trade to eternity. Each new additional trade is placed only when its risk is within original risk, not increased (due to BE or profit of previous trades). At least last trade (orinal or added) must be secured with BE.

So I have never a free ride. Only at some point I secure last trade with BE and do not place additional trade.

BTW For me such routine is highly important.
Quoting RickM
. Stop hedging and "man up" and take the bloody loss quick Hedging is for fearful traders
I understand what you mean perfectly. Hopefully i will be able to illustrate some day why i ever consider it in multi-order environment ("averaging down").
Quoting ffpa
{quote} Adding has obvious logic behind it right, i hope. When I see current momentum is confirmed just what i do (1) original order to BE (2) place new order. I feel like I do not increase risk exposure with the same lot-size order, which is probably over-simplified statement. Pepole would called it "scaling in". Still for me it is the same setup, the same interest zone, the same reson to trade. The same risk (not increased).
If I have no concrete answer to the question "why" then I'm not using it.

For example you are talking about adding more to the position and stop loss placement.

Then please tell me:

1. How much and at what level you adding?
2. Where you place your stop loss and with what qty?

I'm 100% sure that you don't know the answers. Me too btw. That's why I'm not using stop losses. I tried may years to find the answer for that question but failed.
Same way adding more to profitable positions looks strange for me. What for you adding? If you will add you will adjust your position and make your position not so profitable and it some cases even you can set it is loss. So how you are calculating it? Especially as you said you are trading manually. It is not possible to calculate that of the fly.

Next big thing is that stop loss is always market order. And it can literally ruin your deposit. Because there is no guarantee that it will execute at the desired level. It can execute -10% lower and cause liquidation. And it will do it someday for you for sure. They advertise stop losses as the guards for your deposits. But this is lie. Stop loss due to its nature (market order) can't guarantee anything. It can guarantee only liquidation - the only one thing it can guarantee for you with 100% accuracy and this is only true word about stop loss behavior. All other wet dreams how stop loss will help you are just wet dreams and scam.

That's why I have this thread: we are talking here about math. Not about dreams. Things that you can't explain with math a common sense are not working. They work only on youtube channels and inside successful trader's threads here on FF, but not in real life.
Observer effect
Quoting ryuryu
{quote} If I have no concrete answer to the question "why" then I'm not using it. For example you are talking about adding more to the position and stop loss placement. Then please tell me: 1. How much and at what level you adding? 2. Where you place your stop loss and with what qty? I'm 100% sure that you don't know the answers. Me too btw. That's why I'm not using stop losses. I tried may years to find the answer for that question but failed. Same way adding more to profitable positions looks strange for me. What for you adding? If you will add...
Yes i will think it over. For sure my risk calculation is not precise. Although i place order quite fast and manage multi-orders efficiently. However risk calculation for them is not precise. Therefore i am in need for a tool to calculate the risk. Just to be clear - I am designing tool to manage risk for my routine and try to find all cognitive mistakes in this routine.

I will digest and hopefully come to conclusions and answer here.
Quoting ryuryu
{quote} If I have no concrete answer to the question "why" then I'm not using it. For example you are talking about adding more to the position and stop loss placement. Then please tell me: 1. How much and at what level you adding? 2. Where you place your stop loss and with what qty? I'm 100% sure that you don't know the answers. Me too btw. That's why I'm not using stop losses. I tried may years to find the answer for that question but failed. Same way adding more to profitable positions looks strange for me. What for you adding? If you will add...
With Regard to SL. SL is better than impulsive "happy triggering" with no risk limit. But obviously it is not the best tool.

Yes "stop loss" should be called "start loss". Yes it is a scam, only if you use "hedge" instead.

However in case i enter big i prefer quick/tight stop loss, similar to routine of RickM. My big is not his big, of course.

So each technique has its application. I am very serious about these issues. I find this area the most important in trading, maybe more than qulity of entry level.
Quoting ryuryu
{quote} 1. How much and at what level you adding?
This is my practice of adding.

Usually after original trade is placed and in profit, I expect some counter reaction (move opposite to my trade).
- Maybe I should partially take profit, but i deliberately do not do it. Profit is minimal.
- Maybe I should move SL to entry (BE)(and liquidate "hedge"). I do it sometimes however with no systematic rule.

Here goes counter reaction. Price revisits entry level. There are two scenarios:
- price revisits entry level and goes into loss. I wait.
- price retraces/revisits and goes back into profit. I treat it as a "momentum" confirmation. This should be long-range time-based candle (1 minute or better 5 minute)

When I see "momentum" confirmation:
- i BE original trade
- i place additional order with lotsize equal to order secured with BE.

Price goes into deeper profit with my 2 orders already in play.
- What i should do - i should repeat the routine - wait for counter reaction, wait for momentum confirmation, act accordingly - possibly place 2nd additional order (= 3 order)
- What i do - i add 2nd additional order with mixed results, not waiting for confirmation.

In any case when i say order i mean grouped orders placed in some zone - every time i see some momentum push in my favour. If momentum is "fake" (lets call that way) i stop placing group orders until new momentum push (real or "fake"). Whe I reach my order "risk-limit" - i stop placing group orders. It refers to both (1) original order (group) and (2) additional order (group(s)).
Quoting ryuryu
{quote} 2. Where you place your stop loss and with what qty?
I check round numbers , high volume node , low volume node - i place after low volume node, which is after high volume node, which is after round number.

Round number does not have to be big number - it just have to round. Minimal round number for EURUSD is for my routine: 1,0560.

It is true that it may be 1,0550. or 1,0600. I have unfiortunately no systematic rule for that.
Quoting ryuryu
{quote} Same way adding more to profitable positions looks strange for me. What for you adding? If you will add you will adjust your position and make your position not so profitable and it some cases even you can set it is loss.
I am greedy pig, probably. If i add without "momentum" confirmation (AS DESCRIBED BEFORE) but only on the assumption that there is a cascade and i need to get in - i almost always fail. I get out of fail with small loss, still it is not effective.

Even in "cascade" situation there are pauses (probably take profits) which basically create "momentum" confirmation - i should wait for.

The worst version of adding is adding straight against obvious resistance, where some kind of price reaction is guaranteed.
Quoting ryuryu
{quote} Things that you can't explain with math a common sense are not working. They work only on youtube channels and inside successful trader's threads here on FF, but not in real life.
Stalin said - i trust no one, sometimes i do not trust myself.

Me too. I listen to smarter than me. I do not trust them blindly.

I listen only to people who are honest "with themselves", which can say - this is what i know, and this is what i do not know but believe it is true.
0 traders viewing now