No SL No Leverage Strategy - working so far | Page 11 | 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

  • #201
  • Apr 5, 2012 10:57pm Apr 5, 2012 10:57pm
Quoting Piphitter
You are right Bob but like most of the time …. an advantage has usually also some kind of disadvantage behind it.
The locker or recovery trader has the advantage to turn the floating loss into a profit while the SL-trader booked the loss already. But nothing is 100% sure and there is still the possibility that the floating loss can get bigger or worse finish at some point as a loser too, while the SL trader doesn’t have it anymore. The loss is booked and that’s it.
[size=3][font=Calibri]As...
Now it comes to money management. Here is where I use a percentage of account over number of pips. When a trade hits negative 1% of my account I will do something with it more than a Counter (Used as an adjective for the ninny's that dont understand the English language) Trade. But at that point I dont let trades get bigger than that. This is where the arguments about wiping out an account are laughable to me. They ignore that we still practice MM. But then again when you focus only on the negative you dont see the rest. Off to Bei Hai for Easter weekend Bye.
  • #202
  • Edited 5:11am Apr 7, 2012 4:29am | Edited 5:11am
I have made a few small corrections to the original document (see post 196). Please re-download and replace the previous version.
Attached File(s)
File Type: pdf 3 ways to manage trades (ver2).pdf   309 KB | 789 downloads
  • #203
  • Apr 7, 2012 6:55am Apr 7, 2012 6:55am
LazyPawn,
you invested a lot of time (me too) and your conclusion is this:

Quote
However on forums like Forex Factory where anyone can make absurd claims
regarding methods like martingale, recovery, no stop-loss, increasing bet sizes, lock-unlock, futile hedging and so on
… many traders are drawn to such methods because they try to bypass the unpleasant feeling generated by closing a
trade as a loss. Once the trader understands that he’s simply playing a game of probabilities he should choose the
methods that have a superior expectancy long term.
I bet you are not aware that you proved my method is the better one because it has a superior expectancy long term
and I will always be ahead of the losser.

Your whole problem is your lack of awareness and dignity towards
others who write something which goes against your deeply engrained
beliefs.

Here are the reasons for my claims:

1. I outlined from the very first posting that the losser will not take additional entries at the level where the pending order of the locker
is placed.

Again for you, LazyPawn, because you are still ignoring it:
the losser will not take additional entries at the level where the pending order of the locker
is placed.

Do you get it now, LazyPawn ?
Or do you still react as you did the whole time ?

You had no "secret agenda", your agenda was transparent to you, you did not even think about it ( the term "transparent" is from NLP = NeuroLinguistic Programming, you can google it if you want an understanding of what it is ).

What was your agenda ?
Something like this:

"Oh , again another guy who thinks he can hedge, although mathematicians and great traders have proven that it does not work".

This made you blind to really let my premise enter your thinking.
It did not matter to you and later on you "justified" your agenda.
"Hey, you cannot just take more trades than the losser.
I am telling you what you must do, you stupid and unlogical guy
who doesn´t understand simple math. "

That was and still is your agenda, LazyPawn.

Are you now aware of it ?
Does it register ?

Instead of accepting what I wrote, you tried to prove your thing
and that implied that you don´t accept my premise.

That was your whole fight here and you offended and kept on offending me although you broke your rules of conduct by it.

2. Based on my premise and based on the observance of H4 charts, I proved that you cannot find more than 1 or 2 bad unlock levels
on any chart.
This is the "guarantee" that my lock-unlock is superior to the classic losser.

You proved it mathematically in your PDF, remember ?

3. A classical losser will not enter a trade at a SL-level.
It is against his philosophy. Thus even that part of your "logic"
is flawed because it does not reflect real life.

I have about 400 manual trading systems on my harddrive, most of them commercial and some free systems.
99.99 % are losser type of systems.

Nowhere they teach: Reverse your trade at the SL level.
But they do teach: Accept that your analysis was wrong, take the loss
and wait for a better signal.
The odds are normally stacked up to your favor with such setups, but
not all will work out. You cannot expect to win each setup.
Accept it, accept the loss and move on.
Believe and trust that if you religiously follow the rules, combined with sound MM, you will be profitable long term with this method.

But what did you do ?
After not dignifying my premise, in your quest to prove that I am idiot and all others too who hedge, you invent completely new losser trading styles
like reversing a trade at the SL - level.

Are you aware where your quest to prove your point has led you ?

I know manual systems which keep you in the market by reversing at
the opposite signal etc. But those are about 0.1 % of all losser strategies
and my premise was not that the losser will reverse his losing trade.
My premise was that he accepts the loss and does nothing until the next
valid signal presented itself.
Didn´t matter to you. You invented the martingale losser who increases his lot-size although I always said: No, the losser will not change the lot-size.

My conclusion:
My lock-unlock method is mathematical sound, is logical and has a superior
positive expectancy to most losser type of systems.
You proved that in your PDF although you are not aware you did.

However on forums like Forex Factory where anyone can make absurd claims
regarding methods like martingale, recovery, no stop-loss, increasing bet sizes, lock-unlock, futile hedging and so on
… many traders are drawn to such methods because they try to bypass the unpleasant feeling generated by closing a
trade as a loss.

Even worse are those who are locked into their prejudices and driven by an overpowering urge to justify their beliefs. They are on a crusade to humiliate everyone who dares to think outside of their losser mental-box.
No means is bad enough to accomplish their mission, everything is used:
not dignifying others , ignoring their arguments, ignoring their premises, calling names, offenses.

Unfortunately they always find followers who post one-liners , usually containing words like "crap", by which they demonstrate that they too are not able to understand their locked state of mind and what the discussion is all about.

This pulls the level of debate to a pattern which is common to primitive and antisocial people. It is kind of a mob mentality.
Many problems in the world origin in such behavior.
Sad, but true.
Once the trader understands that he’s simply playing a game of probabilities he should choose the
methods that have a superior expectancy long term.
  • #204
  • Edited 9:22am Apr 7, 2012 7:50am | Edited 9:22am
fxtr51,

I did my best to understand your method and to investigate it. I always do that when someone comes with something that has been proven for centuries as wrong, and claims that it's good. It's my nature, maybe because of the scientific background. If I still didn't understand your method correctly, please feel free to post a document similar to mine to describe what you actually do and compare it to other traditional methods, proving that it's superior long term.

If as you claim in your latest post your using LU is based on the fact that your particular method cannot have more than 2-3 losing trades in a row, then I accept that LU is superior to the simple CSL method (although not by much) - and inferior to the method I called ISL (due to trading costs). I clearly showed that in my file. But if that's the truth, you shouldn't be using 1% per trade, you should be using much much more. Read about Kelly's formula and expectations. Plus there are other ways that would increase your account even faster than the LU (again, assuming that you cannot have 4 losses in a row). The reason values like 0.5%-2% are suggested as good risk trades is exactly because with a 1:1 RR reaching a bad sequence of signals is going to happen. So ... to make things clear: if the 4hr method that you are using cannot have 4 or more consecutive losses it's a great idea to use LU, and I also suggest you use a much higher risk, to increase your equity faster. If your 4hr strategy can have strings of losses like all 1:1 strategies known to man so far, then it's better to revert to the classical money management ways and use low leverage.

This is purely a discussion about trade management, math and expectations. I don't understand why you keep trying to move it to a personal level. I am not interested in that and won't answer such things. Calling me primitive and antisocial is more than ridiculous, as anyone following the discussion can confirm. Losing the argument makes you resort to such cheap insults.

And just one more thing - I never said or implied that the SL player opens a new position at the SL level. I have no idea where you get that from. It was never said here, it is not in the pdf or anywhere else. He opens a new position when he has a new signal. The CSL player opens 1 lot, the ISL increases his lot size if the previous trade was a loss, but they both open it when they have a signal.
  • #205
  • Apr 7, 2012 12:05pm Apr 7, 2012 12:05pm
Quoting LazyPawn
This is purely a discussion about trade management, math and expectations. I don't understand why you keep trying to move it to a personal level. I am not interested in that and won't answer such things.
Amazing.
Look:
Quote
just another useless ''strategy'' ...
Quote
ridiculously ridiculous, I mean everything.
Quote
This thread has to be an April Fool's joke????

Good one !
Quote
what you said is CRAP!
Quote
It's known as futile hedging.
And look, now you found yourself getting heated up, so to speak,
but of course, LazyPawn, you didn´t keep trying to move it
to a personal level. No, absolutely not.
Not you.
Quote
If one has the common sense to accept the obvious mathematical truth
That was when you defined new rules because you had to "win the argument at all costs".
Of course "followers" showed up als always, not understanding what they are talking about.
Quote
In general it's just plain stupidity:
This is all not on a personal level, Lazy Pawn ?
For me it is, if you allow.

Especially after you finally proved yourself my method is superior.

Your followers, or let us call them "the SL-believers" vented.

Quote
This thread is nonsense. NO professional trader making their living from the markets trades this way. NO ONE.

Pull up your panties girls....http://www.forexfactory.com/images/buttons/quote.gif

Nothing on a personal level ?

Only me who is trying to pull it to a personal level although I never started to offend but only reacted to such attacks ?
Maybe I should have lost patience, maybe I am the culprit here, or ?

And now you again, nowhere near taking it to a personal level of course.
Quote
However I must say that your complete inability to understand very simple logic and math is appalling.
I repeat your own words , LazyPawn
Quote
I don't understand why you keep trying to move it to a personal level. I am not interested in that
You are not interested to admit something here, it seems to me.

But you can do better, like here, LazyPawn
Quote
What you say here is utter nonsense.
And again, I only remember you of your own words:
Quote
I don't understand why you keep trying to move it to a personal level. I am not interested in that
Somehow your words don´t add up.

Quote
I never changed the rules, it was probably a misunderstanding on your part.
No , it was not.
You made your own rules in order to prove me wrong.
Later on you justified why you did this but still failed to see the obvious.
Only in your PDF you proved it in front of all that my method is superior, something which I had shown you from the beginning.
But you needed to get through with your agenda first.

Then , after justifying your changing of rules, you come along with this:
Quote
If this is not clear enough I will bring it to an extreme, to see the absurdity of your position.
Has nothing to do with a personal level, right ?

And then you construct something which has been refuted long before
Quote
Suppose a locker (not you, someone else) at some point has taken 10 bad positions in a row,
Oh yes, ( not you, someone else ) , but with someone else you
want me to see the "absurdity" of my position.

After I showed that it is hard to find 2 losing setups in a row on a H4-chart, which everybody can verify for himself, you now had to
invent "someone else, not me" who must be blind to find 10 losing setups
in a row to get me to "see the absurdity" of my position.
Although I know the danger of lock-unlock myself, which is unlocking too many times at the wrong levels.
But for you I am obviously stupid, too stupid to know the advantages and
disadvantages of what I do and therefore you need to
invent blindfolded "others" who will go the road to their margin call which I will not go, while all I have to do is to wait for a valid signal on H4 to
get out of the cycle with a breakeven or profit.

And I am telling you a "secret" here:
I sometimes am in a cycle and unlock at a good S/R like round number
or on a break of a trendline (H4 or higher trendline) and book my
green pips, then watch the PA and lock at the same level as before.
Then again PA goes somewhere and I unlock booking another portion of
green Pips and locking again even at a better level than before.
It happens many times, I just didn´t mention it to keep it simple.
And in the context of my premise, the losser has no chance to get even
with me, so why making the SL-believers even more angry ?

Quote
fxtr51,
I have never offended you deliberately
I understand.
It was a necessity for you to "win the argument", right ?
Or what other motivation do you see ?

Quote
It is true that I expressed doubts regarding your mathematical understanding, when I became exasperated.
Well put. Let us see if it holds water
Quoting LazyPawn
However I must say that your complete inability to understand very simple logic and math is appalling.
This is your way of "expressing doubts" ?
And of course it isn´t personal, yes ?

Quote
But I also praised you for your coding skills.
Oh, how gracious.
Now I should be quiet and completely happy, right ?

By the way, my mql coding skills are not good, I am a beginner at best.
That is fact.

Anyhow.
That praise cannot make up for the offenses.

Quote
Calling me primitive and antisocial is more than ridiculous, as anyone following the discussion can confirm. Losing the argument makes you resort to such cheap insults.
I didn´t call you that.
I referred to those who are posting one-liners with words like "crap" .
And your insults don´t count of course because they were put in more sophisticated shape. You are better than others, obviously, so why do you think I referred to you ?

Sorry for pointing to the contradictions in what you try to look like and what you wrote.
  • #206
  • Apr 7, 2012 2:26pm Apr 7, 2012 2:26pm
fxtr51,

Why are you quoting all those things trying to make it look like I said them? I didn't use the word crap, I didn't use the word panties, I didn't talk about April's fool joke and so on. Those quotes come from other people. Why do you put them all in one basket, to confuse people who didn't read my posts? The only remarks that were mine are those regarding math and logic, and even those were said after insults coming from you.

Anyway I see that you are not interested at all in discussing trading or money management here, you just want to have a fight with someone. So please ignore me just as I will ignore you from now on. Find someone else to have such a "debate" with. For a moment I thought you really wanted to compare some methods, to analyze data, to calculate profitability ... that's why I analyzed charts, I discussed examples, I asked you questions and asked for details about your method, I invited you repeatedly to follow a chart or drawing together to see how the methods compare, I wrote a pdf and so on. Several times I asked you to discuss concrete examples, you ignored them. You're here to pick up a fight not to see how methods compare and what to expect. This is the end of my conversation with you, you really don't deserve my time. I won't read your posts or address you anymore.


To all the other traders who may have a genuine interest in the topic at hand - if you are interested in analyzing the truth behind the luck-unlock methods please download the pdf and see for yourself. Feel free to test various other scenarios following the guide that I wrote. The method has the same expectation as the simple increasing of the bet size after a loss, the only difference being that the costs and stress related to having multiple positions open on the same pair are higher. The method can theoretically be profitable for a 1:1 RR system only if that system doesn't generate more than 2-3 losing signals in a row. When there are more your account will be depleted really fast. From a practical point of view the method should never be used for 2 reasons:

1. There is no 1:1 RR system that doesn't have a string of losses, even 10 or more, not to mention 4. This thing has been proved so many times by statisticians and real life trading that it's beyond doubt. They can be rare but they will happen, something that's been shown over and over again. When this "black swan" strikes you wipe out your account. The extra 1% you get by hoping that you never get more than 3 bad signals in a row is not worth taking the risk. To give you an idea, even if the system has an excellent 60% winning rate, the chance of 4 consecutive losses within the first 50 is huge (70.4%) - making it close to certain ... and the chance of running into a series of 10 consecutive losses is 0.4%. And that's just for the first 50 trades. More trades and you're definitely going to hit one of those bad runs. What does 10 consecutive losses mean? It means -10% if you risk 1% per trade, classical way. Bad ... but you're still in the game. And if you're using the lock-unlock method it's -55%! It's very hard from a psychological point of view to recover after such a blow.

2. Assuming the truly miraculous finding of a 1:1 RR strategy that never has more than 3 losing trades in a row (something never heard of), it would still be a very bad idea to use the locking-unlocking technique, for the simple fact that a simple increase in the bet size (e.g. using 10% risk per trade instead of 1%) would be much more profitable. You can check this simple simulator and you will see that the Kelly value for a 1:1 RR system with a 65% winning rate is 30% (so the ideal risk per trade should be 30% not 1% for maximum growth). Even if we use a very conservative approach of only 1/3 Kelly the risk per trade should still be 10% not 1%.

In other words if the system has the usual expectancy of a very good solid system (which is only a few percent above 50%), then the lock-unlock strategy is doomed to failure. If the system has an incredible expectancy then you would gain more/faster using other methods such as the simple increase of your bet size.

Why are these very obvious truths, mathematically proven, ignored by so many traders? It's human psychology. On one hand we have the desire to avoid the immediate loss, on the other hand the false sense of security generated by a few days, weeks or even months when the "risky" method worked. Some people are incredibly naive, they really think that the most brilliant minds that work in this business combined with the best technologies that money can buy failed to notice their little lock-unlock/martingale/recovery brilliant idea. They are right and the experts are wrong.
  • #207
  • Apr 7, 2012 3:25pm Apr 7, 2012 3:25pm
Quote
Why are you quoting all those things trying to make it look like I said them?
I did not try to look like you said them, that is your wrong assumption only.
I quoted them in the context of the discussion and the direction it went, you being a part of the problem.

Quote
The only remarks that were mine are those regarding math and logic, and even those were said after insults coming from you.
Wrong.
You started to insult me.
And still you refuse to take responsibility for it.

Quote
Anyway I see that you are not interested at all in discussing trading or money management here, you just want to have a fight with someone.
Again wrong.
That description fits for you and you demonstrated that along the way.

Ask those who treat me with respect. They have a completely different perception of me. How come ?

Quote
Several times I asked you to discuss concrete examples, you ignored them.
Again wrong.
I discussed my method, posted a screenshot and explained it several times.
You had a different agenda all the time.
You tried to introduce your made up rules in order to "prove me wrong".

Quote
You're here to pick up a fight not to see how methods compare and what to expect.
Obviously not, but your description fits for you.
You are good in projections.
You see your own shortcomings in others who don´t have them
and then accuse them and insult them for "not having enough brains"
to understand your point.

Quote
This is the end of my conversation with you, you really don't deserve my time. I won't read your posts or address you anymore.
Yes, that is fine.
Saves me a lot of time.


Quote
To all the other traders who may have a genuine interest in the topic at hand - if you are interested in analyzing the truth behind the luck-unlock methods please download the pdf and see for yourself. Feel free to test various other scenarios following the guide that I wrote. The method has the same expectation as the simple increasing of the bet size after a loss, the only difference being that the costs and stress related to having multiple positions open on the same pair are higher. The method can theoretically be profitable for a 1:1...
Again you are wrong, because you never asked or cared how I trade the system in real life.

Here is a short list of your wrong assumptions which lead you to wrong conclusions:

1. My system is not 1:1 RR.
You attacked it on that assumption and I agreed because allowing different
RRs would have complicated the comparison.

2. You are talking about 4 and more losing signals in a row which will deplete the account very fast.

a) my system has maximum 2 or 3 losing signals in a row, it will not deplete the account.

b) I do not trade how you described it in your PDF.
I do not start a new cycle at each unlock-level.
Why should I ?
I just unlock and wait, having my safety-net placed as a pending order
in case the unlock-level was picked wrong.

Thus I don´t pile up losing setups and lock-unlock cycles as you assume in order to "prove" that then my system will fail.

You did everything to "prove" your point and you constantly invented
scenarios which have no relevance to my method as I described it from the start.

We know that already, but although you proved that my method is superior within the context I presented it, you still keep on trying your best to
make it look bad.
Then you turn around and accuse me of not being interested in your comparisons and your fabricated scenarios which have no relevance to
the topic.

Quote
1. There is no 1:1 RR system that doesn't have a string of losses, even 10 or more, not to mention
Open a H4 chart, use the method 60minuteman teaches and show me
more than 2 or 3 bad setups.
And why 1:1 RR ?
Why not trailing the thing or use a MA or fractals or other methods
to exit ?
Oh I know. Somehow you need that 1:1 RR to prove your point.

But even if you only talk about 1:1, my method is superior to the losser methods in the context presented.

Quote
4. This thing has been proved so many times by statisticians and real life trading that it's beyond doubt.
Really ?
Show me where they proved it on H4 with the method I mentioned.
To me your postulates are not beyond doubt.
Show me on a H4 chart please.

Quote
They can be rare but they will happen, something that's been shown over and over again. When this "black swan" strikes you wipe out your account.
Wrong.
Because I don´t pile up new cycles at unlock-levels.

You needed that assumption to "prove" your point, but it does not reflect what I trade.

Your whole fabricated scenarios are useless and cannot be used
in a sober comparison or discussion.


Quote
What does 10 consecutive losses mean? It means -10% if you risk 1% per trade, classical way. Bad ... but you're still in the game. And if you're using the lock-unlock method it's -55%!
Wrong.
Again based on your wrong assumptions as usual.
In real life I don´t get 10 losses in a row and with the lock-unlock method
those 2 or 3 that might happen will not bother me because I just have to wait and the market will let me ride them to breakeven or a profit.

No way to get -55 % .
Your really need to fabricate everything to "prove" your point.

Quote
2. Assuming the truly miraculous finding of a 1:1 RR strategy that never has more than 3 losing trades in a row (something never heard of), it would still be a very bad idea to use the locking-unlocking technique, for the simple fact that a simple increase in the bet size (e.g. using 10% risk per trade instead of 1%) would be much more profitable.
Now it is getting ridiculous.
Using 10% risk per trade.
Come on.
Are you a real trader, LazyPawn ?

Even if Kelly or Obama or the Pope would prove it mathematically that
I would be more profitable with a 10% risk per trade, I still would not
do it.
And 99.9999999999 % of the other traders wouldn´t do it either.

Oh yes, on a demo account. Oh boy. What a tremendous adventure, trading with virtual money.
There you can bet 50 % too. That would get you ahead if your bet wins.

Why don´t you ask yourself why you cannot just admit what is obvious ?
Instead you are constantly inventing fantasy scenarios to prove your point.

Quote
In other words if the system has the usual expectancy of a very good solid system (which is only a few percent above 50%), then the lock-unlock strategy is doomed to failure.
Wrong.
Based on wrong and unrealistic assumptions.
But we know your way of "arguing" already, right ?

On the contrary, it is not doomed to failure but is successfull if done right.
Cannot be done by a noob, we already established the requirements.

Quote
If the system has an incredible expectancy then you would gain more/faster using other methods such as the simple increase of your bet size.
Yeah, of course.
Simply increasing your bet size and not allowing to call that "martingale".
But I will not increase my lot-size and many who already lost live accounts neither.

Only nanningbob and a few others who know what they do and have sound MM can increase lot-sizes and not losing their accounts.
For most other traders it is the road to their personal margin call.

Quote
Why are these very obvious truths, mathematically proven, ignored by so many traders?
Yes, why ?
And why do you make up fantasy scenarios to "win the argument"
and then turn around to give universal advice which does not fit
to my method ?

Quote
It's human psychology.
Since you seem to have an understanding of human psychology,
I challenge you to analyze your behavior and your way of
debating in this thread.
I gave you many hints.

Quote
Some people are incredibly naive, they really think that the most brilliant minds that work in this business combined with the best technologies that money can buy failed to notice their little lock-unlock/martingale/recovery brilliant idea. They are right and the experts are wrong.
Why do you put lock-unlock and martingale and recovery in the same basket, LazyPawn ?

We don´t need an answer from you because we know how you tick.

Lock-Unlock works, you have proven it yourself.
Martingale and recovery works too in a strongly limited method proven by nanningbob and others.

So what are you ranting about, LazyPawn ?

Your universal advice does not fit to us, it is besides the point.
It has its place outside of our methods and nobody doubts that, maybe some newbies. So your universal advice should be addressed to them,
not being used as a tool to discredit successfull and well thought
trading methods.

See you.
Regards
  • #208
  • Apr 7, 2012 3:31pm Apr 7, 2012 3:31pm
Quoting fxtr51
Amazing.
Look:
And look, now you found yourself getting heated up, so to speak,
but of course, LazyPawn, you didn´t keep trying to move it
to a personal level. No, absolutely not.
Not you.
That was when you defined new rules because you had to "win the argument at all costs".
Of course "followers" showed up als always, not understanding what they are talking about.
This is all not on a personal level, Lazy Pawn ?
For me it is, if you allow.

Especially after you finally proved yourself my method is superior.

Your followers, or let us call them...

At least if your going to quote me use my name. It's OK...

I like what LazyPawn has to say. He is obviously a much more experienced trader than you.

The bottomline is fxtr51 is that the SL crowd will always win in the end.
May I suggest that you learn how to emotionally take a loss. Start with the fact that your fighting a losing argument. You lose get used to it. ITS OK TO LOSE...


May I quote an anonymous trading legend " This reminds me of the guy who jumps off a tall building and on the way down says "So far so good"

Yes your NO SL is working so far....

You see LazyPawn, myself and all others who know how to trade with a stoploss know with 100% certainity you will fail trading like you do.

Now head on over to 60minutemans thread and his skype room and learn how the feck to use a SL. It aint that hard sunshine.

BTW...Beautiful day in Vancouver today time to go out and enjoy the sunshine.

Cheers,

Bluesteele
Master your Mind,,,Master the Market
  • #209
  • Apr 7, 2012 3:36pm Apr 7, 2012 3:36pm
One more thing before i go....

FXTR51 you say your system has maximum 2 or 3 losing signals in a row.



Here have a towel to wipe the water off behind your ears.
That says alot about your trading knowledge and experience.

You are dead wrong. I dont care whos system you throw out for an example either but every system will have at some point more than 3 losing signals in a row. I dont give a rats ass what any baccktesting says. It will.

Don't forget your towel sonny.

Blue
Master your Mind,,,Master the Market
  • #210
  • Apr 7, 2012 3:37pm Apr 7, 2012 3:37pm
This completely makes sense to me as I sometimes employ the same strategy.
Most people want a mechanical system, and this does not fit the definition. It actually involves position management... One good trader once said: "I don't trade, I manage margin."

Quoting fxtr51
I am not different from the stop-loss-people, very conservative indeed.
Where do you place your SL ?
Depends on the timeframe, normal thing is
the last swing high/low or strong S/R level etc.

That´s the level I lurk for a pending order in opposite direction to
the active order.

Somehow general rule: Where the experienced trader places his SL,
I have my pending order, hoping it will not get triggered.

I do nothing but wait for a good setup to unlock.
5 Pips , no, maybe on a M1 chart, but I don´t trade M1 anymore.
I prefer...
  • #211
  • Apr 7, 2012 4:04pm Apr 7, 2012 4:04pm
Quoting fxtr51
I am not different from the stop-loss-people, very conservative indeed.
Where do you place your SL ?
Depends on the timeframe, normal thing is
the last swing high/low or strong S/R level etc.

That´s the level I lurk for a pending order in opposite direction to
the active order.

Somehow general rule: Where the experienced trader places his SL,
I have my pending order, hoping it will not get triggered.
"a pending order in opposite direction to the active order" - otherwise known as a stop loss...
  • #212
  • Apr 7, 2012 4:15pm Apr 7, 2012 4:15pm
fxtr51,

would you mind to go over your past trades and look for your longest lock/unlock cycle and explain here in detail how you traded out of your floating loss?

we would all learn a great deal and will stop all the critics.

thank you

euclid: sorry, I dont think you understand.........its called a hedge!
  • #213
  • Apr 7, 2012 4:36pm Apr 7, 2012 4:36pm
Quoting yonnie
fxtr51,

would you mind to go over your past trades and look for your longest lock/unlock cycle and explain here in detail how you traded out of your floating loss?

we would all learn a great deal and will stop all the critics.

thank you

euclid: sorry, I dont think you understand.........its called a hedge!

Yes trading out of floating losses... An absolute firecracker of an idea. Something every Noob should learn.

Yes...please show us...how to trade out of floating losses..So we can all
burn out our compounding calculators calculating the riches too come !


hmmmmmmm.... I believe the great recovery artist known as Nanningbob has already wrote a booklet on it. Just dont mention the dirty word MARTINGALE... he prefers the much more politically correct Recovery.

He gets kinda cranky when you mention the "M" word.....
Master your Mind,,,Master the Market
  • #214
  • Apr 7, 2012 4:37pm Apr 7, 2012 4:37pm
Quoting euclid
"a pending order in opposite direction to the active order" - otherwise known as a stop loss...
At the surface, yes. But there is a whole world behind that statement, something you have to think very hard to be able to discover.
  • #215
  • Apr 7, 2012 5:01pm Apr 7, 2012 5:01pm
I disagree. If you are not consistently profitable, nothing in this world will get you out of a floating loss. To the contrary, the loss will become larger. If you are profitable, and you know what you're doing, then next to other methods, fading out of it is one way..

Here's the problem. If you hedge it is very important to ask the question: Why am I hedging? If the answer is "out of fear" you may as well close the loser and move on. Most traders are overleveraged, and when the market moves swiftly against them they hedge as a "pause" strategy. That's not going to solve the problem...

On the other hand, if you use SL, that in itself is an art, contrary to what's being thought out there... One can not have a fixed SL amount for instance, because the market expands and contracts and what works now will not work for the next trade (the same applies for TP). One can not say I'll set my SL below support because that's exactly what fuels the reverse. How many times you set a SL, the Market takes it out and then it reverses in your original direction?

If you want to be successful you have to be able to buy weakness and sell strength. There's simply no way around it and I know, it's the hardest thing to do because it's completely counter intuitive.

Unfortunately there are no set rules, nothing you can buy or steal to make you successful and we can argue here until we're blue in the face. The only way to success is thousands and maybe tens of thousands of hours behind the screens. This is a game of endurance, psychological strength and gut feeling pretty much..Quantify that if you can.

Quoting bluesteele
Yes trading out of floating losses... An absolute firecracker of an idea. Something every Noob should learn.

Yes...please show us...how to trade out of floating losses..So we can all
burn out our compounding calculators calculating the riches too come !


hmmmmmmm.... I believe the great recovery artist known as Nanningbob has already wrote a booklet on it. Just dont mention the dirty word MARTINGALE... he prefers the much more politically correct Recovery.

He gets kinda cranky when you mention the "M" word.....
  • #216
  • Edited 5:28pm Apr 7, 2012 5:08pm | Edited 5:28pm
Quoting esprit
Nacho,

Your approach can work, but you will need to put much more work into it then what you have so far. That said you will gain a lot from trading this way, especially with a very small account. You will learn quickly many aspects of trading.

It is one thing to say that you can take a loss and another to actually ride out a 500 pip move against you.

That said you need to put a lot of work into what you are doing. For one you should try to first make sure you can make money on a simple s/r / Moving average system. A simple 60/40% system...
thank you esprit for your words and for the link you provided.

I actually trade for small TP only because it is quicker to reach. Trading for 15 pips allows me to close trades sooner and free again my margin so I can open new ones, whereas if I aimed at lets say 250 pips, I maybe would have to wait some days/weeks, and floating losses already take this long to reach tp.. so I prefer to lock in quickly as many small trades as I can.

Thanks also to the other experienced traders that I see now debating over different MM techniques and I am following with interest. Well that was what I was hoping for when I started the thread, so I can learn more on how to manage the risk with no set SL.
  • #217
  • Apr 7, 2012 5:14pm Apr 7, 2012 5:14pm
Hi Nacho, very nice to meet you
As to leverage, iwjw's right - no leverage means your trading 1:1.
As to your way of trading, I've been working on it for more than ten years, I will help you to learn much more about what you are doing.
  • #218
  • Apr 7, 2012 5:20pm Apr 7, 2012 5:20pm
Quoting attila

At the surface, yes. But there is a whole world behind that statement, something you have to think very hard to be able to discover.
I think the back and forth between fxtr51 and LazyPawn, together with LazyPawn's excellent pdf and contributions from other experienced traders makes things extremely clear to any novice trader considering following these types of strategies and ways of thinking. They may appear less painful than using more traditional methods but it's only delaying the inevitable far worse pain.

I really can't understand why some people have a need to try and reinvent the wheel but stubbornly insist on using a square template, totally disregarding all the mathematical and logical evidence right in front of them.

Being unable to accept the patently obvious is not a good trait for a trader but it goes some way to understanding why these nedge/recovery/lock/unlock/etc strategies exist and why they're so attractive to some novices who haven't yet managed to grasp the basics of trading.
  • #219
  • Apr 7, 2012 5:23pm Apr 7, 2012 5:23pm
Quoting attila

I disagree.
I think you might have missed the sarcasm in Blue's post.


(Good post of yours by the way.....)
  • #220
  • Apr 7, 2012 5:26pm Apr 7, 2012 5:26pm
Quoting pipmutt
I think you might have missed the sarcasm in Blue's post.
Maybe. I'm a lil slow.
0 traders viewing now