An example of a real trade example would be most educational.
literally yes; however, i trade in sets of pairs–the sets themselves have always been positive.
Would you show us an example of a set of pairs and show us an example of how you made money?
Been scratching my head and banging it against the wall trying to figure this formula out to use in trading. How about a hint?
I have posted a new thread in the same forum about this entitled Why most of you lose money…check it out
I can’t help being curious, is this all leading up to something? like instructions on how to trade correlations or something?
I don’t tell people how they should trade…What I am doing is providing the basic set of information that I personally used to arrive at my trading system. If one doesn’t understand the system, they shouldn’t be trading it in the first place imo. Check out my other post, it’s a bit more informative.
I agree mostly with the above, I would never trade a scalping strategy unless I was using some kind of correlation, I have taken it to the ultimate I think with the system I’m using now, but in a basic manner say the EUR/USD and USD/CHF are very highly correlated, so if you were to identify something on the EUR/USD you can easily confirm it by looking at the USD/CHF.
positive sets…that means pairs that have positive correlation?
I was referring to the set profit in that post. you can use either positive or negatively correlated pairs
This way of trading is not just a way to reduce losses, it equally reduces profits.
It’s just a fancy way of going long and short at the same time… for the joy of paying spreads to be flat…?
wrong point of view is wrong…see other post plz
When direction is in your favor you make less, when goes against you, you loose less. Just trade a smaller positon…you wont have double spread. Common sense.
So, your down the spread of 2 trades at the start, and your positions cancel each other out.
What if you actually predicted the market correctly, and it went to your target…you would have an equal loss, that would cancel it out…minus spread, so you would be negitive for the trade.
BTW, now that you mention it, I did go long at the start of today on EU, and made +70 pips. It’s a thing I like to call, predicting where price is gonna go. Had I bought u/cf, I would have made nothing…minus spread.
Any difference in price move is reflected in E/CF…again…just trade that…pay one spread.
Im not “badgering you”, Im talking about the topic.
The reason the e/u and u/cf are not perfectly correlated is because of the difference in e/cf. That is a fact. Instead of trading 2 pairs to profit from the difference, just trade that pair…it takes less pips to make up spread.
Because having double spread adds to your risk, by starting you off further in the red.
Why are you so focused on risk and not profits? By your way of trading, there is no profit to be made by correctly predicting the market…you are trading two directions. No risk=no reward.
You are betting on 2 runners in a race that only has 2 runners. So one will loose, one will win and your are paying double the betting fee! (spread)
I asume its because he’s sensible enough to realise that he can control risk 
So there is a timing to the entry…not just random?
@ people responding to pete…as i’ve said before he’s missed the point several times and has been rather snippety about it…please just ignore him–either forever or until he posts something sensible, thank you.
@ SweetPip – there [I]can[/I] be timing to your entry, if you choose to play it that way. Quite literally however, so long as correlation is above a certain level that you see fit, i use 80-85 as a starting point, then you can enter a trade set whenever you feel like it.
This WAS a sensible post, and something everyone should understand if they are even thinking about correlation seriously:
“[I]The reason the e/u and u/cf are not perfectly correlated is because of the difference in e/cf. That is a fact. Instead of trading 2 pairs to profit from the difference, just trade that pair…it takes less pips to make up spread[/I].”
That fact that you don’t find this usefull to your thread, shows me your limit in understanding…on the contrary, it’s a “must understand” point.