No SL No Leverage Strategy - working so far | Page 9 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

High leverage vs Low leverage 74 replies

High Leverage vs Low Leverage 21 replies

High Leverage vs Low Leverage 20 replies

Working of Leverage!!! 4 replies

Right now My metatrader3 is not working is yours working? 0 replies

Attachments: No SL No Leverage Strategy - working so far
Exit Attachments

No SL No Leverage Strategy - working so far

  • #161
  • Apr 5, 2012 1:04am Apr 5, 2012 1:04am
Quoting hanover
If the "frozen 1% P/L" is a loss, then both traders are effectively down 1%.
The frozen 1% P/L has an effect because there is 1% less equity available for new trades.
The losser has 1% realized loss and thus has 1 % less equity available for new trades.

But a floating loss is not equal to a realized loss.
In fact it is completely different.

How can this be explained ?

I once was in stocks.
They were "worth" 500k (was in DM times long before the stupid and idiotic Euro was invented by NewWorldOrder criminals).

They were rising and the same amount of stocks were 600k.
Did I have earned 100k ?

Then market dropped and the stocks were only 300k "worth".
I hold them.
Did I lose 200k ?
Or even 300k relative to the all time high ?

What do you think ?
Is a floating loss equal to a realized loss ?

When I read your postings, I have the impression that you are trying
to convince me that they are equal.

So I waited some more with my stocks until
I trusted the advice of the year 2000 doomsday ( all computers will
stop working correctly, the world will fall into stone age )
and I sold my stocks for 500 k.

My net profit was zero.

the year 2000 came and the lights still did burn after midnight.
And the stocks saw a rally.
My stocks would have rallied to 1 million.
But I was invested in real estate instead.
Missed the rally because I sold on a rumor.

Do you still believe that a floating loss or floating profit is
equal to a realized loss or profit ?

Then every word more is futile, hanover.


Quote
Perhaps "ignore" was bad choice of word on my part. But in your reply to LazyPawn, where you say:
"Outcome:
Losser: - 3 %
Locker: + 1 %"
...... the +1% doesn't include floating or frozen losses, right?
(Just trying to understand, no criticism implied).
The + 1 % is after the close of all positions. All cycles are finished.
I am not in the market.
The losser has closed his 5 positions too and is not in the market.

In that situation the +1% do not include frozen floating losses, there is
no open position at all.

Quote
I have only one tiny problem with that. I don't see any reference to the math in my post.
Your math has no relevance to lock-unlock and the problem is that some - and maybe you too - assume that you "proved" that lock-unlock does not work.

Then they come and say: hanover proved that lock-unlock does not work and is stupid.

I say: They donīt understand lock-unlock in the first place and thus they fall into the trap that you just "proved" that lock-unlock is nonsense.

Quote
I have nothing further to add to my previous posts, and I don't want to repeat myself. The simple fact is that we view floating/frozen losses differently.
I donīt know how to see a floating loss as being equal to a realized loss.
My stock market example proves that they are not equal.
If you still insist that they are equal, there is nothing to discuss anymore.
Quote
Let's just agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion.
I would if I understood what you are trying to say.
But I donīt get it because I donīt understand why a math not related
to what lock-unlock is should "prove" something.
I donīt get your point, hanover.
  • #162
  • Apr 5, 2012 1:17am Apr 5, 2012 1:17am
Quoting yonnie
fxtr51,

if you hedged a 30 pip loss and undo the hedge at an excellent spot and price goes in your favour for 30 pips, you`re at BE.

same for the SL guy who lost 30 pips when you hedged and placed the same trade at that excellent spot is also at BE.

I can only see you getting ahead of the SL guy if you unhedge at that excellent spot, but also place another order at that time.
only then would you be ahead with a 30 pip win.
Yes, that is the whole point and if we compare lossing and locking I will
place another order when I unlock because the unlock is a different cycle and has nothing to do with the new order.
This way I will be getting ahead of the SL over time without any doubts
because nobody has a 100 % win rate.
That fact is getting me ahead.

Basically the math is easy and it is very hard to understand that some donīt get it:

For each loss a losser has, I get to breakeven or make a profit.
For each winner I make a winner too.
Now figure out who will be ahead.

And I explained it a dozen times but I know what happens with such threads.

Nobody (maybe a few) read the old postings and things which have been explained a dozen times are asked again.

Therefore I let it rest.

Those who still come and say "crap" and "nonsense" only demonstrate that they have not read or did not understand .
So what ?

Let them keep their illusions , who bothers ?

Goodbye and thanks to those who discussed in a sober and non-offending manner.
  • #163
  • Apr 5, 2012 1:48am Apr 5, 2012 1:48am
Quoting fxtr51
Yes.
At the level where I close the profitable long leg, I will open the same
SHORT the losser opens.
Then you have 2 lots short. It simply means that you trust that signal a lot. That will increase both your potential risk for loss and your potential gain. It is no different than the SL guy opening his short at the exact same spot with twice the usual size. If you close your shorts after 100 pips in my example you have the 300 pip gain plus the 100 pip gain plus the -230 floating loss. Total 170 pips. The SL guy has the 30 pip loss plus 2x100 pips gain which is also 170.

If you want to follow the 2 kinds of traders on any kind of chart, you will have to give them the same credit. I give you a very simple list to see the equivalent of what the SL guy does. In our common chart example if you simply follow the table you will see that when you close your long leg of the hedge, that is equivalent to the opening of a short by the SL guy. If you open a new short at that same spot, that is also equivalent to opening a short by the SL guy. That is how he ends up with twice the size of the short at the same spot and you both have the same profits. Please feel free to follow the logic you find in that table for any chart and you will see that the outcome is always the same for the 2 kinds of traders.

Hanover was right, it seems to me that you never count the floating loss and that's why you imagine that you are ahead. So if you have banked 1000 pips and have a -600 floating loss you count this as 1000. The traditional MM guy has no position open, just a 400 pip gain, and you say that 1000 is bigger than 400. You fail to realize that at some point you will have to close those floating points and what you get is exactly the same. You think that you would unhedge at great spots until those floating losses become all wins, which is possible, but you refuse to give the SL trader the skills to open fresh positions at the same point and make the same profits.

You give us the example of stocks initially worth 500k, then assume the SL trader would have liquidated them when they were worth just 300k for a loss, while you kept them until they got back to 500k and didn't lose a penny. That's comparing apple with oranges. The discussion is about hedging vs. SL at exactly the same point. If I buy at 500 and sell at 300 I lost 200. If you buy at 500, open a short at 300 to hedge, then when you get back to 500 you have zero positions closed but 2 positions open - one of them is BE, the other one is -200. Same outcome.
Attached Image
  • #164
  • Apr 5, 2012 1:55am Apr 5, 2012 1:55am
I think the point the non-believers in lock/unlock are missing is that risk is being limited to the locked range

This is not the same as having no SL, far from it

If the locked range is 100, and the price moves a further 1,000 pips the "loss" (unrealized) is still only 100 pips (one losing trade of 1,100 pips and one winning trade of 1,000 pips)

This is not the same as trading with no SL, those who trade with no SL and do not hedge will have a floating loss of 1,100 pips

There are 3 distinct groups here (stop-lossers, hedgers, and neither)

Andy
  • #165
  • Apr 5, 2012 2:50am Apr 5, 2012 2:50am
Quoting LazyPawn
Then you have 2 lots short. It simply means that you trust that signal a lot. That will increase both your potential risk for loss and your potential gain. It is no different than the SL guy opening his short at the exact same spot with twice the usual size.
All you are doing is twisting the scenario to make it fit to your desired
"equal outcome".

I thought I would not post again in this thread but since you are twisting the rules and thus you compare apples to oranges and then you blame me for doing that, I cannot let this stand uncommented.

Since you now understand that I will not only unlock but open the same Short and therefore I will be ahead , you invent a martingale
style of the losser.
He has to double his risk to get the same outcome the locker will have.

But the comparison does not allow Martingale trading.
Without breaking the rules for a correct comparison, you realize that
the losser will never make the same profits the locker does.

Why are you trying so hard to twist the rules and to compare apples with oranges ?

And even on that you are wrong.
Because your losser will now lose 2 % if price goes against his Short
and hits SL.

He will now be at -1% , - 2% = total of 3 % realized loss
in his account.

While the locker will have a frozen floating loss of -3% .

Next setup, the losser must enter with a 3 % risk to get even
and if he was wrong again, he is now at 6 % loss in his account.

He is on his way to the margin call while the locker is not because the locker does not martingale. All of his positions are the initial 1 % risk
and if you bother to look at a chart, you will see that the locker will work his way out of the floating loss to a breakeven or profit
while the losser has emptied half of his account with his martingale nonsense.

The structure of the market is obvious.
There will be levels where the unlock will bring me breakeven or a profit
on a cycle even if I unlock several times at a bad level and have to lock again.
The martingale losser in his futile attempt to prove that his method
is equal to mine will sit in front of a half emptied live account
and I doubt that he will double his lot-size again at the next valid signal.

In fact, he will not do it because the next loss could mean a margin call for him.

To sum it up:
You have to invent a martingale loss-trader to "prove" your point while
no believer in the "take a loss and move on" will ever recommend to trade
martingale style. They will strictly warn everybody to even think about martingale trading.

And I foresee what your next "argument" might be:
But, if you unlock a dozen times at the wrong place, your floating loss
will pile up to 50 % of your balance ......
I say: No, it will not because I will not open new cycles at a certain point.

Then you could say: See ? The illusory martingale loss-taker who already
lost 50 % of his money would then dare to place the next trade with double of the lot-size and if he is lucky, he will get no margin call and will
break even on his terrible losses and thus
I can prove that lossing and locking are not different but in fact
lossing is better and locking is your way to a margin call.

Well, I hope you see how futile your attempts are to "prove" your point.

In this sense let us agree that we disagree.
I can live with that.
  • #166
  • Apr 5, 2012 3:02am Apr 5, 2012 3:02am
Did you run on EA? or Manually set?
  • #167
  • Apr 5, 2012 3:03am Apr 5, 2012 3:03am
This is an interesting thread and I feel a bit out place saying anything with all the big guns like nanningbob and hanover around. I have gone through the posts over and over again but I couldn't understand how fxtr51 works his trades even with all the elaborate explanations. I kept on going back to it because there was something in it that made a difference. After a dozen or so times I realised what has been attracting me back to this thread. It was something that fxtr51 said, "a floating loss is not a realized loss".

I still don't understand fxtr51's method. Like he said, locking-unlocking for a trade to finally end as a breakeven or profit is an art. He is trying to explain art using mathematics, that's probably why I don't get it. The point is, there is 1001 ways to turn a hedged positing into a profit or at least a breakeven. It can be unlocked when the market turns the negative way and relock when it turns positive or vice versa, the range of the lock can be narrowed gradually, the positions can be averaged etc.

The norm of using 5 or more indicators, then pinpointing an entry, setting up a TP and SL, forget about this trade and go looking for the next one is in direct contrast to a hedging method of marrying the trade and managing it to success which may take months or years. It needs continous attention (affection) and it then makes it difficult to trade multiple currencies. A monogamous trading life is unheard of with the diversification principle so prevalent. I just love the idea of not giving any money to my broker, since they have taken so much of it!
  • #168
  • Apr 5, 2012 3:16am Apr 5, 2012 3:16am
Quoting LazyPawn

For some people closing a position as a loss hurts a lot.

For other traders like myself there is absolutely no pain in having a 1% loss today and a 2% win tomorrow.
That's an extremely good point, and in my opinion is the essence of 'trading' and what distinguishes a trader from the crowd.

Rather than admit their inability to master and psychologically adjust to the basic concept of trading some people prefer to try and compensate for their shortcomings by devising strategies similar to the one in this thread. How productive these strategies are compared to more conventional methods is an indisputable and simple mathematical calculation, however that doesn't stop them trying to justify it to themselves and to others who dare challenge their thinking.

The debate will rage on forever, to admit the patently obvious would be nearly as painful as taking a loss for some of these people!



http://i39.tinypic.com/5etlw0.jpg
  • #169
  • Apr 5, 2012 4:16am Apr 5, 2012 4:16am
Quoting subrafx
I still don't understand fxtr51's method. Like he said, locking-unlocking for a trade to finally end as a breakeven or profit is an art. He is trying to explain art using mathematics, that's probably why I don't get it.
You will get it when we only concentrate on 1 cycle.

I go through an example:

I get a signal to go Long.
I enter the market with a Buy position, 1 % risk ( 20 Pips distance
from OpenPrice to StopLoss price ).

I place a pending Short at 20 Pips distance of the Long.

If price goes up and hits my TP, the cycle is finished and I delete
the pending Short.

If price goes down and triggers my pending Short,
I have 2 open positions and , both have no SL
and the floating loss is frozen at 1 % ( 20 Pips ).

Price can now move 1000 Pips up or down, I will still have 1% floating loss.
(we neglect the swap , I will earn negative swap and then close the cycle
at breakeven or in profit , so swap does not matter)

Somewhere either below or above my hedge, I get a signal.
Lets say that price moved 200 Pips down.

There it stalls and bounces from monthly S/R or a round number
or a Fib-level of a higher timeframe or it crosses the Alligator upwards
or the Dinapoli thing or whatever.
I get a good and reasonable signal to enter Long.

According to my analysis price will turn up, trend is exhausted
or just a pullback.

It is a valid signal to go Long, ok ?

There I unlock.
What is that ?

I close the Short with a nice profit.
But that profit is not the point.
Because the open Long is still in a floating loss.

If price moves up 20 Pips from where I closed the Short,
I can close the Long too. ( add spread where it applies )

Price moved down 200 Pips from where my Long open price is,
but I donīt need a 200 Pips move upward to break even.

I only need 20 Pips upwards, then I close the Long position
with a loss.
The total sum of Long and Short is zero.
I got a breakeven on this cycle.

That ends the cycle.

If price doesnīt move 20 Pips up to release my cycle, but
turns down again and continues to fall,
for that case I have a pending Short below
the level where I closed the first Short.

This pending order could be 20 Pips below the unlock level or
only 10 Pips, thus the new accumulated floating loss
will be greater than the initial 1% .

Therefore I should avoid to unlock too often.

But it must not be so.
Depends on the market.
Because I could trail the price if it moves up to my favor and does not trigger the new pending short.

With a 20 Pips distance trailing the price does not make much sense, but
if the distance is 50 Pips or more, then it can make sense.

Therefore it is not correct to say that each time I unlock wrong, my
floating loss will increase and will bring me to a margin call.
Because the floating can decrease as well.

And now to the question how often I unlock and lock again because
I chose the wrong level and price turns against me:

If you look at a H4 chart with SMA50 on it and you trade inside bars
and engulfing bars like 60minuteman does ( Buy Sell line strategy thread and Simple trend trading thread ),
you will not find more than 2 or maximum 3 wrong levels in a row
to unlock .

In fact, wrong levels only happen when trend exhausts before
the trend changes.

Therefore the whole discussion about " but if you have to unlock and lock again 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 times in a row, you would get a margin call"
is just drawn out of thin air and has no substance.
But it is the only "argument" against lock-unlock.

And still veterans appear who do not understand this all and just tell everybody about their misconceptions and prejudices and wrong conclusions.
How come ?

Because such is life and we can call it "locked minds".
Only a few here unlocked their minds yet.

Do you understand now how I trade it ?
  • #170
  • Apr 5, 2012 5:04am Apr 5, 2012 5:04am
Quoting fxtr51
Therefore the whole discussion about " but if you have to unlock and lock again 10 or 20 or 30 or 50 times in a row, you would get a margin call"
is just drawn out of thin air and has no substance.
But it is the only "argument" against lock-unlock.
And an important point here is that any system which failed 30 or 50 times in a row would almost certainly lead to overall failure of the system, irrespective of whether one hedges or implements stop losses, it's a pointless argument in the hedging debate.
  • #171
  • Apr 5, 2012 5:37am Apr 5, 2012 5:37am
Quoting Andy B
And an important point here is that any system which failed 30 or 50 times in a row would almost certainly lead to overall failure of the system, irrespective of whether one hedges or implements stop losses, it's a pointless argument in the hedging debate.
Yes.

And the invented martingale loss-trader would get his margin call
after being wrong 5 or 6 times in a row (starting with 1% risk and doubling
his lot-size to get even with the locker) or the broker server returns
"not enough money, order canceled" when he tries to open 32 lots
which is not realistic anyways because nobody would risk his whole
money for recovering the initial loss of 1 %,
while the locker has a floating loss (frozen) of 5 or 6 % in the best scenario and around 8 - 12 % in the worst scenario.

But still they say: a margin call or having lost 50% of their money is not different from a floating 5 - 12 % (frozen) loss.

That shows that the debate is not rational and sober from the stop-loss-takers party.

They just continue to call it "crap" and "stupid" and insist on refuted
arguments.
  • #172
  • Apr 5, 2012 5:46am Apr 5, 2012 5:46am
Quoting fxtr51
Do you understand now how I trade it ?
YES....I am almost there and it looks beautiful.

Just one small question though. Let's take the Eur/Usd as an example. I have a 10k a/c. My entry is 1:1. I know you have mentioned that the locking point depends on a lot of factors like S/R, Fibs and PA but what would your average locking point be? Considering all your years of experience. You mentioned 50 pips in your example but it would be caught in intraday noise for Eur/Usd. You also said that the lock should be avoided as much as possible just like a SL. But it will also be easier to get rid of a lock of such a small range (for a profit or breakeven). Or am I still missing an important point?

I know you are considering leaving this thread but hang in there will ya? Some of us are not done with you yet
  • #173
  • Apr 5, 2012 5:58am Apr 5, 2012 5:58am
Quoting subrafx

(fxtr51)...

I know you are considering leaving this thread but hang in there will ya? Some of us are not done with you yet
Guys, please remember that fxtr51 is an active trader, an inspiring programmer and he also has a life outside of the forum.

I'm not that patient as he is, I think I've heard and I've seen everything here , so I'm out of here.

Bye, everybody!
Gentlemen always play by the rules. If they can't, they change the rules.
  • #174
  • Edited 8:03am Apr 5, 2012 6:52am | Edited 8:03am
Quoting fxtr51
All you are doing is twisting the scenario to make it fit to your desired
"equal outcome". I thought I would not post again in this thread but since you are twisting the rules and thus you compare apples to oranges and then you blame me for doing that, I cannot let this stand uncommented.
Look, I have never in my life offended anyone on a public forum and I won't change my rule. However I must say that your complete inability to understand very simple logic and math is appalling. I have never changed any rule or twisted anything at all.

I will make one last attempt to explain the basic premise and rules. We are looking at using SL vs. using hedging at the same point.

1. Every time the hedging trader opens a fresh position, the classical MM trader does the same, with the same size.
2. Every time the hedging trader opens a position to hedge a previous one the classical MM trader accepts his SL at the same level.
3. Every time the hedging player closes one leg of a hedged pair of trades the classical MM trader opens a position in the opposite direction, same size (e.g. if you close your long leg, I open a short position).

I hope those rules are simple enough for you to understand. If your strategy is to close a leg of a hedged pair AND open a new position at the same point those are 2 actions. That is why the equivalent in the MM world is to open twice the lot size, one is for you closing a leg, the other one is for you opening a new position.

That is not martingaling or changing any kind of rules. When you close your long leg and open a new short position you are net short by 2 lots. Exactly as the classical MM is, when he opens 2 lots at that point. If at one point you close 6 long legs and open 3 fresh shorts, that is for the classical MM player the action of opening 9 times the usual position size.

Quote
And even on that you are wrong. Because your losser will now lose 2 % if price goes against his Short and hits SL. He will now be at -1% , - 2% = total of 3 % realized loss in his account. While the locker will have a frozen floating loss of -3% .

Now you see, you are EXACTLY making my point. What people here keep trying to explain to you is that a 3% realized loss is exactly the same thing as a 3% floating loss. For you to recover those 3% floating loss positions you must make some wise decisions later. The classical MM player, making the same wise decisions, adds 3% to his account, while you get rid of the 3% floating loss. So overall you are both on breakeven.

What you say here is something like this: If we both have 100k and we lose 10k ... the fact that you borrow 10k from a friend means you did a wise thing and you are 'richer' than I am. Because I have a "realized" loss and a balance of 90k, while you have a balance of 100k and owe someone 10k. You tell your friend that you will give his 10k back only when you have an opportunity to win 10k or more. But when that happens, I also make the same 10k or more, so we both end up in the same place.

Quote
Next setup, the losser must enter with a 3 % risk to get even and if he was wrong again, he is now at 6 % loss in his account. He is on his way to the margin call while the locker is not because the locker does not martingale. All of his positions are the initial 1 % risk and if you bother to look at a chart, you will see that the locker will work his way out of the floating loss to a breakeven or profit while the losser has emptied half of his account with his martingale nonsense.

What you say here is utter nonsense. For you to recover the 3% floating loss you must do exactly the same thing, keeping the same "good" positions open with exactly the same number of lots. The only difference is that you have 2 shorts at 2 different levels, while the classical guy has them at the same level. Or 3 or 6 shorts or how many you want.

In our example, if you close your hedged long leg, and open a new short, aren't you net short by 2 lots? If the price keeps falling, don't your 2 shorts make exactly as much money per pip as my 2 shorts? If the price keeps going up, don't your 2 shorts make exactly the same loss per pip as my 2 shorts? And if you start hedging again by opening longs don't you add more pips to your floating loss in the same manner? Is this so hard to understand?

Quote
You have to invent a martingale loss-trader to "prove" your point while
no believer in the "take a loss and move on" will ever recommend to trade
martingale style. They will strictly warn everybody to even think about martingale trading.

How can you say anything about martingaling? A guy who takes his SL is martingaling, and one who has 13 hedges is not? LOL. That's ridiculous. If you call opening 2 shorts martingaling, then having an old short open and opening a new one is also martingaling. There is no difference.

I address one more time the same request that both me and Hanover have done, and if you fail to comply I consider it as best proof that you lost the argument: Provide a chart or a price drawing, no matter how simple or complicated you want. You choose it, you draw it, any way you want. We follow that chart together, step by step, using the 3 very simple rules that I outlined above. If at any point during the experiment you find that the hedging player has a higher equity than the classical MM player I swear this is my last post on FF. By equity I mean the total of balance and floating positions. E.g. if the MM player has a balance of 90 and the hedging guy has a balance of 130 but with -40 floating loss, they have the same equity. This is not something personal, I don't mind being wrong and I accept when I'm wrong - that is why I use SL when trading among other things. But it seems that you don't. So accept the challenge and that should end this silly debate once and for all. For me both outcomes are just great. I either prove to you and others reading the thread an obvious truth, or you prove that you have found a way to keep winning forever in the markets, something that no brilliant mind so far has seen.
  • #175
  • Apr 5, 2012 7:16am Apr 5, 2012 7:16am
Quoting Favorite
Guys, please remember that fxtr51 is an active trader, an inspiring programmer and he also has a life outside of the forum.

I'm not that patient as he is, I think I've heard and I've seen everything here , so I'm out of here.

Bye, everybody!
It was nice meeting you and glad you participated. Hope we can meet up again. Poor Nacho, wonder what he is really thinking about his thread he started. Would have liked to see more of his trades since I also use the 5MA for some of my trades. That was what attracted me in the first place was to see some of his trades and setups.
  • #176
  • Apr 5, 2012 7:50am Apr 5, 2012 7:50am
Quoting fxtr51
All you are doing is twisting the scenario to make it fit to your desired
"equal outcome".

I thought I would not post again in this thread but since you are twisting the rules and thus you compare apples to oranges and then you blame me for doing that, I cannot let this stand uncommented.

Since you now understand that I will not only unlock but open the same Short and therefore I will be ahead , you invent a martingale
style of the losser.
He has to double his risk to get the same outcome the locker will have.

But the comparison does...
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I understand what you are doing and comprehend the method.
  • #177
  • Apr 5, 2012 8:03am Apr 5, 2012 8:03am
Quoting LazyPawn

What you say here is something like this: If we both have 100k and we lose 10k ... the fact that you borrow 10k from a friend means you did a wise thing and you are 'richer' than I am. Because I have a "realized" loss and a balance of 90k, while you have a balance of 100k and owe someone 10k. You tell your friend that you will give his 10k back only when you have an opportunity to win 10k or more. But when that happens, I also make the same 10k or more, so we both end up in the same place.
Since the maths is a bit too difficult for me, thought I will just use the anology to understand what's going on. Pawn and Fxtr both have savings of 100k. Their trades are identical, TP is identical but only the losses are managed differently. So when the market moves against them by 10k, Pawn immediately pays the friend 10k and the balance is 90k. But Fxtr says something like "I owe you 10k and I will pay when I feel like it" hence his balance is still 100k. For the next few months both Pawn an Fxtr work the same trades and make the same profits without any losses but Fxtr has an additional responsibility of 10k to settle. Therefore he works a second job to settle 10k that he owes his friend. In trading terms, Fxtr looks for an opportunity to close the 2 trades for a breakeven in addition to the normal trades that both the traders would have taken irrespective of the time, spread or rollovers. I can't see if this increaseses risk but as long as you are not an American, margin requirements can be zero.
  • #178
  • Apr 5, 2012 8:14am Apr 5, 2012 8:14am
Quoting LazyPawn
Look, I have never in my life offended anyone on a public forum and I won't change my rule. However I must say that your complete lack to understand very simple logic and math is appalling. I have never changed any rule or twisted anything at all.
Of course you have.

The basic comparison was this:
5 setups.
4 losers.
1 winner.

I explained in great detail what the stop-losser will do at each level
and what the locker will do.

Of course the locker will be ahead and come out
with + 1 %
while the losser will come out with -3 %.

Go back and read and you will see it.

When you finally realized that my math is correct,
you invented new rules.
Suddenly you said that the losser would double his lot-size to break even.

This way you twisted it to justify your point.

Now you say that I completely lack to understand very simple logic and math.
Thank you, that just proved your point that you never offended anyone on a forum and you wonīt change your rule ?

Arenīt you able to read what I have written a dozen times ?
Instead you are attesting me a lack of understanding.

Quote
I will make one last attempt to explain the basic premise and rules. We are looking at using SL vs. using hedging at the same point.
No need for that because it is a different basic premise than I used all the time.
The thread is full of such wrong assumptions of the loss-believers, thatīs why I wrote a dozen times that your assumptions are wrong, but you didnīt get it.

You are talking about something else and then blame me for being stupid.
That is not a sober discussion, LazyPawn.
I donīt need it and nobody else does.
  • #179
  • Apr 5, 2012 8:28am Apr 5, 2012 8:28am
Quoting nanningbob
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I understand what you are doing and comprehend the method.
Thanks too, nanningbob.

I understand too what you are doing ( have read the document about the Recovery which was posted in Alfredoīs thread ) and comprehend it.
And I know that Al and others are very successfull with it.

My chosen initial risk of 1% is too high for my comfort zone for averaging in order to reach BE,
therefore I prefer lock-unlock.
  • #180
  • Apr 5, 2012 8:30am Apr 5, 2012 8:30am
Simply stating that you fare better without at least ONE CONCRETE example doesn't help your cause. I never changed the rules, it was probably a misunderstanding on your part. If you simply close the long leg, I open a short. If you close the long leg plus open a fresh short, obviously the equivalent is opening 2 shorts. You refuse to accept the theoretical mathematical model - that's fine, maybe math is not your strong point. But then you also refuse to go step by step with me over any kind of example that YOU choose - that would help you and everyone see that the outcome is the same. I rest my case here. Good trading to you.
0 traders viewing now