Soultrader's Clinic :) | Page 6 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Question to Soultrader 17 replies

Why can't I post on Soultrader's clinic? 2 replies

Attachments: Soultrader's Clinic :)
Exit Attachments

Soultrader's Clinic :)

  • #101
  • Oct 8, 2007 2:14pm Oct 8, 2007 2:14pm
Quoting Trader KGB
0.4 is the r/t commission. Each side is 0.2. So that's $2.82 vs $2.
You are correct, I neglected to quote futures on a per side bases. However, in the final analysis, that does little to sway the arguement.

It should have been $5.64 vs. $4.
  • #102
  • Oct 8, 2007 2:30pm Oct 8, 2007 2:30pm
Quoting philmcgrew
However, in the final analysis, that does little to sway the arguement.
Except it's a flawed analysis to use TradeStation's spreads as the basis for the comparison. Any scalper/daytrader worth his/her salt is on an ECN. Here's a better comparison (real time). 6C at 1 pip, vs spot at 0.2 pip. Notice the size differential as well. 7 contracts on the inside futures spread, vs $28MM on FXi at the inside..
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: CAD.PNG Size: 23 KB
  • #103
  • Oct 8, 2007 3:28pm Oct 8, 2007 3:28pm
Quoting Trader KGB
Except it's a flawed analysis to use TradeStation's spreads as the basis for the comparison. Any scalper/daytrader worth his/her salt is on an ECN. Here's a better comparison (real time). 6C at 1 pip, vs spot at 0.2 pip.
Why don't you tell people what the institutional account minimums are to realize that spread and then take a guess as to how many people here meet that requirement. Let's either drop this or keep it realistic.
  • #104
  • Oct 8, 2007 8:36pm Oct 8, 2007 8:36pm
Quoting philmcgrew
Let's either drop this or keep it realistic.
I'm in favor of the former. I'm usually the futures proponent, so it didn't seem like the right stance to me anyway.
  • #105
  • Oct 9, 2007 4:25am Oct 9, 2007 4:25am
have you done?



still havent seen hide nor hair of a successful verteran 5 min FOREX trader with 10 months out of 12 profitable - WITH PROOF.

does one exist?
https://linktr.ee/Soultrader
  • #106
  • Oct 9, 2007 1:46pm Oct 9, 2007 1:46pm
Quoting soultrader
have you done?



still havent seen hide nor hair of a successful verteran 5 min FOREX trader with 10 months out of 12 profitable - WITH PROOF.

does one exist?
Hi Soultrader

I actually don't care about any FX 5min daytrader as a proof...if there is none, so be it.

I am a futures daytrader and I am consistently profitable, so I am happy and I know I am doing the right thing.

FX is a different animal.

I think the purpose of this thread is to help traders grow right? So let's get it on already!

Cheers
  • #107
  • Oct 9, 2007 3:08pm Oct 9, 2007 3:08pm
Here is a topic for discussion. I've been having some difficulty in adding to my winning positions. I'm torn about buying it all at once for risk issues but then I'm torn about adding and having the position correct. What might be a possible sound solution to my current dilemma?
thanks
bunton
Check Mate GAME OVER
  • #108
  • Oct 10, 2007 6:39am Oct 10, 2007 6:39am
Quoting bunton
Here is a topic for discussion. I've been having some difficulty in adding to my winning positions. I'm torn about buying it all at once for risk issues but then I'm torn about adding and having the position correct. What might be a possible sound solution to my current dilemma?
thanks
bunton
ahh, a nice one to get my teeth into.

A very good question - and in reality one o the hardest things to do consistently. I havent yet managed to get this right and it's an area I want to concentrate on also so i'm deffo interested in hearing from others on this subject.

First lets cover what we know.

It's a proven fact that you make more money by adding to trend runners. Its also a provfen fact that you make more money by adding fractions of your initial stake that you do by just adding multiples of your initial stake.

for example if you are in for 1 lot then any additions should be something like a max of 20% of your original stake - so additions of 0.2 lots will make you more money over the long run than just adding another lot. This is a proven fact and makes sense when you think about it.

I don't however know on what timeframe this research was proved and I suspect it was daily charts and above.

Ive had six years in this game and still I find it very difficult to add to a winning trade - it's a lot easier adding to a losing one

However I have tried this in the past, adding to a trend when a pullback occurs at 20% of original stake and to be fair, it just has not worked for me. Maybe it's the timeframe I trade or maybe it's because i look to enter trends when they are running rather than get in at the first wave of a trend. I find that I'm adding not far off the end of the move and as such the addition is next to useless.

I looked at other methods too - adding at so many pips in profit - adding as each position gets to a break even state. Just couldnt reconcile it myself.

For me I no longer try to add in, either when going down from entry to get a better average (never worked for me) or adding when in profit. I just stick my first stake on and let it roll.

I'd love someone else to comment on this with something that works for them. Not theory though please - real hard methods in use.
https://linktr.ee/Soultrader
  • #109
  • Oct 10, 2007 8:09am Oct 10, 2007 8:09am
Quoting soultrader
ahh, a nice one to get my teeth into.

A very good question - and in reality one o the hardest things to do consistently. I havent yet managed to get this right and it's an area I want to concentrate on also so i'm deffo interested in hearing from others on this subject.

First lets cover what we know.

It's a proven fact that you make more money by adding to trend runners. Its also a provfen fact that you make more money by adding fractions of your initial stake that you do by just adding multiples of your initial stake.

for example if you are in for 1 lot then any additions should be something like a max of 20% of your original stake - so additions of 0.2 lots will make you more money over the long run than just adding another lot. This is a proven fact and makes sense when you think about it.

I don't however know on what timeframe this research was proved and I suspect it was daily charts and above.

Ive had six years in this game and still I find it very difficult to add to a winning trade - it's a lot easier adding to a losing one

However I have tried this in the past, adding to a trend when a pullback occurs at 20% of original stake and to be fair, it just has not worked for me. Maybe it's the timeframe I trade or maybe it's because i look to enter trends when they are running rather than get in at the first wave of a trend. I find that I'm adding not far off the end of the move and as such the addition is next to useless.

I looked at other methods too - adding at so many pips in profit - adding as each position gets to a break even state. Just couldnt reconcile it myself.

For me I no longer try to add in, either when going down from entry to get a better average (never worked for me) or adding when in profit. I just stick my first stake on and let it roll.

I'd love someone else to comment on this with something that works for them. Not theory though please - real hard methods in use.
Here is what I think.. I am a complete newbie (2 1/2 years of FX) so it is useles. But the way I look at the things is that the longer trends lasts the less likely it will continue. (sideways or reverse follows, in any combination). There are 2 unknows at least. What is the extent and how long will last. Also the other problem is that, the way I see things there are less trends and higher volatility. Maybe this is not true on the daily charts. I do scale out for this reason because I am happy with what the markets give me.. Oh well let the profits run.. Yes of course but you also need to have goals. How do I solve this riddle. Well part of my positions have targets and part do not have targets as I do not know how long will the trend last so I just trail. But certainly I do not add. All my calculations shows that this doesnt work in the long term. Large trends occur maybe once a year. But this is not enough good for me.
.
  • #110
  • Oct 10, 2007 8:17am Oct 10, 2007 8:17am
Quoting bullrock
Large trends occur maybe once a year. But this is not enough good for me.
I'm not sure how you define a large trend but the GBPUSD has moved in excess of 1000 pips 3 times this year and is just about to finish up a 4th. And, we still have almost a full quarter of trading.
  • #111
  • Oct 10, 2007 8:21am Oct 10, 2007 8:21am
Quoting philmcgrew
I'm not sure how you define a large trend but the GBPUSD has moved in excess of 1000 pips 3 times this year and is just about to finish up a 4th. And, we still have almost a full quarter of trading.
Well I was thinking large trend well above 1000 pips.. Say approx 2000-3000 pips? But as I said I might be completely wrong. I should have done deeper analysis before saying anything.
.
  • #112
  • Oct 10, 2007 9:12am Oct 10, 2007 9:12am
have you ever got used to scaling in Phil?
https://linktr.ee/Soultrader
  • #113
  • Oct 10, 2007 9:40am Oct 10, 2007 9:40am
Quoting soultrader
have you ever got used to scaling in Phil?
I'm certainly not a good as I could be when scaling in. I have a couple simple rules.

 

  1. Never add to my existing position unless the original position is breakeven or better.
  2. Add by using the same system that I used on my original entry but drop down a time frame or two to find smaller dips on the direction of the trade.
  3. Use the same stops (always) and limits (if any) as the original position.

I think scaling in is one of the hardest things to do from a psychological standpoint. Most of us breathe a sigh of relief once we are breakeven so the thought of adding on more risk just doesn't feel right. When we enter a trade we immediately start thinking about an exit but would probably be better off thinking about adding. I would submit that if you killed just 2 big moves a year you would be a superstar trader. Adding is the single biggest thing that I work on in my trading.

  • #114
  • Oct 10, 2007 10:29am Oct 10, 2007 10:29am
nice to see in a way that we are on the same page.

Mind you, i don't worry about break even much because i never know when im at break even exactly as my exits arent in stone to the pip. (i exit on bar closes only no matter how far it's gone) and i dont use stops and limits apart from for an emergency measure.

To me the difficulty in adding is that I want the same price i got in with to start lol.

I have a code module which adds as each position is near to break even and just adds 10% of the original position whilstever thetrade is running - just that on my timeframes i'm not sure it has enough to go at.

I can understand doing it on daily charts on pullbacks and can see how that would work but not on the frames i use as my average trade is around 200-300 pips
https://linktr.ee/Soultrader
  • #115
  • Oct 10, 2007 11:44am Oct 10, 2007 11:44am
Quoting soultrader
I'd love someone else to comment on this with something that works for them. Not theory though please - real hard methods in use.

Nice thread Thought I would come in contribute my two cents, However it is advisable to NEVER listen to my advice as it is normally B.S but hey, it works for me.

I normally do the opposite as everyone else, when I think I have found a bottom or top or the beggining of a trend whatever.. I go in with .5 lot, large stop loss and see how it goes. When I am in profit, After the first big correction on the hourly or 4hr chart I will wait for the price to exceed 50% of the retracement then I will add either .5 or 1 whole lot depending on price action, AS SOON as it makes a new high and retraces a few pips I throw in another lot. Now every addition to the trend after this is .5 lot or less as the trend may come to a close soon. All of this is based off of Elliot Wave, I start with little on wave 1, load up for wave three and then very cautious for wave 5. Of course this is never standard because each trend has different price action and in the end my decision of when to add and how much to add ALL DEPENDS ON PRICE ACTION AND GUT FEELING. I know this is not a definitive answer laying out rules that will ensure a proper method to adding to positions but this is the general method to which I trade and so far it has worked for me (most of the time), so in essence my advice would be let price action and gut feeling dictate your decision to add to WINNING trades.

Also dips on smaller time frames works as well but only at the beggining of the wave, not at the end.
Just Trade It
  • #116
  • Oct 10, 2007 12:22pm Oct 10, 2007 12:22pm
What I have found what I've done wrong with adding to a winner is that I'm adding to soon. I'm thinking it might be prudent to let the trade move out and then if it gives another signal then add. I've not done well in this area at all. As mentioned easier said then done..


oh me military days has me only conditioned with maps and pictures..lol

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7643/adddo9.png
Check Mate GAME OVER
  • #117
  • Oct 10, 2007 7:48pm Oct 10, 2007 7:48pm
Here are my 2 cents on this. Bear in mind I am a futures daytrader so my strategy might not be applicable to Forex medium to long-term trading.

Very rarely do I initiate a trade with my max position size. I should say that at least 70-80% of my trades go against me by at least a couple of ticks upon entry. That's not because my entries are bad, but it's simply the zig-zag nature of the markets.

This element alone keeps me from going all in right away. If I know 70-80% of the times I can get better prices, why should I rush into my trade?

So let's say I have a nice setup and my ideal position size would be 3 contracts. I may enter my trade with 1-2 contracts max and wait for the market to give me a better entry for my 3rd contract.

Of course, the adds should be done within my support/resistance zone and not when my trade has been proven wrong.

As long as the main principle behind my trade stays intact, I am allowed to add to my position. I establish my max position size for every single trade BEFORE entry.

There surely are exceptions to these general rules. It depends on the setup and the type of volatility at the time of the trade.

From my experience, I've noticed that I can afford to be more patient and wait for better prices when I counter-trend trade. Whereas I need to be quicker when I trade with the trend.

Like someone else already mentioned, I may add to my position in case I get another signal. Yet this is extremely rare and I am usually out of the market before I get another signal. I prefer to initiate a brand new trade after cashing in the money.
  • #118
  • Oct 10, 2007 8:09pm Oct 10, 2007 8:09pm
Quoting soultrader
However I have tried this in the past, adding to a trend when a pullback occurs at 20% of original stake and to be fair, it just has not worked for me. Maybe it's the timeframe I trade or maybe it's because i look to enter trends when they are running rather than get in at the first wave of a trend. I find that I'm adding not far off the end of the move and as such the addition is next to useless.
The above soultrader really is the key to how successful adding to a position can be. I personally am not a great fan of the technique, although I know some of the bigwigs use it successfully. It really comes down to understand the move you are in, and to do that you need to know where price roughly is in its wave structure. Now I am not an advocate of Elliot Wave by any means, I think using it as an entry and exit technique is more guesswork than anything, but it can be useful to understand where we are in the wave structure.

For example if you have entered in what looks like to you the beginning of a new trend, then trading the first main pullback (wave 2) to add to the position would be a good idea, as theoretically, you still have the main move (Wave 3) to come, adding after that is asking for trouble as the main move dies and the market decides what to do next. Elliot however is not the most accurate method in its simplest form, so whatever wave theory you prefer, the point is the same.

The main thing is to understand the market structure, rather than just indicators etc, that way you know at least what area you are in when entering a trade and what to aim for.
You can quit and they won't care, but you will always know.
  • #119
  • Oct 11, 2007 4:51am Oct 11, 2007 4:51am
sorry, but i dont believe in elliott - very easy to see in hindsight but you can never get agreement on which wave is which when it's running.

anyway - you said you werent a fan of adding on pullbacks but agreed that adding is the key - can i ask that if you arent a fan, what method do you use?
https://linktr.ee/Soultrader
  • #120
  • Oct 11, 2007 7:57am Oct 11, 2007 7:57am
Quoting Akuma99
For example if you have entered in what looks like to you the beginning of a new trend, then trading the first main pullback (wave 2) to add to the position would be a good idea, as theoretically, you still have the main move (Wave 3) to come, adding after that is asking for trouble as the main move dies and the market decides what to do next.
Therein lies the problem with elliott waves. You don't know that you've experienced a wave 2 until you see wave 3 and by that time most of the move is over. If it turns out not to have been a wave 2, EW traders just relable it to a B wave. Those guys are never wrong (after the fact).
0 traders viewing now