Not destiny to me, apparently, take a break from blogging. It's just that this topic was raised, and now she surfaced again. I decided to speak out. It turns out that many could not take yesterday's strong movement. The reasons: either knocked out in the footsteps the day before and did not restart, either late. That's actually:
And this is just one example.
In my opinion, there is no unambiguous answer to the question, which is better, work with short stops, or long, cut a loss at once, or sit out and correctly average. This is what confuses me about working at all depots and with short SLs. On the eve of strong movements, multidirectional emissions often occur, enduring feet and bears and bulls. It seems, and Verbitsky, and Baranovsky last year showed super results, but in this, steady downtrend. If the system did not allow entry to all depots, and percent by 60-70% – they would still be able to trade the same number of contracts even after a series of drawdowns, the account balance would be easier to restore.
Well, to endure many unprofitable trades for the sake of one or two profitable ones, a bit like masochism. But is it possible to catch these deals??
Herein, By the way, system, allowing movement against position and averaging has advantages. Cons of such systems – profit per trade is much less, the loss in the trade is several times greater (compared to the above), but a much larger number of profitable trades and a greater likelihood of taking a good move. note, I'm not talking about infinite averaging. They must be well calculated., the entrance is carried out in certain shares, at known intervals. Upon reaching the loss limit or price levels, positions are closed. Good, if intermediate profit-taking is allowed, topping up from kickbacks, etc.. For some reason, for many, money management is expressed only in the concept of `` letting profits flow and cutting losses '', and averaging is perceived as a mortal sin.