Im not sure if this is considered hedging too but is it a good idea to close a losing trade and open a position in the opposite direction ?
For example, if I tried to trade a breakout outside an ascending chanel which later proved to be a fake one, once the price action is back in the chanel, should I open a new trade in this new direction ?
Short answer no. Long answer hell no.
Even longer answer (just because I have my verbose reputation to live up to :8: ) …
No, you shouldn’t, because that would presuppose a system in which the entry-parameters in one direction are exactly the same as the exit-parameters from the other direction; those tend to be “always-in-the-market” systems, which generally aren’t good at all.
With very few exceptions covering very specific (and not commonplace) methods, there’s no reason for this to be sensible.
Don’t close it, double down instead. Twice as fun, and twice as quick.
Alright, but what’s the reason behind not recovering after spotting a fake brakeout ? I mean, if you’re sure than the price action is going to stay inside the chanel again, why not opening a position ? What could go wrong this time ?
Im not sure what you mean …
Because how do you know it’s moving in the opposite direction for any significant period of time? You place a trade and it moves against you 100 pips, so you close the trade and decide to get in again in the opposite direction. It goes in your favour 80pips or so and then swings back and goes against you for the second time.
It’s better to let it hit your stop and then wait for a good entry point, a market that moves up one hour cam just as easily move down the next.
This is sarcasm, doubling down means if you buy EUR/USD and the market drops 100pips then you buy again, hoping for the market to go back to giving you even more profit than the first trade would have done.
Don’t do that… ever.
If you monitor 300 of those trades, and satisfy yourself that they have a genuine positive net expectation, then fair enough, of course: trade them. My contention is that they almost certainly won’t: they’re highly likely to be no better than random entries.
If you’re “[B][I][U]sure[/U][/I][/B]” how prices are going to behave, you would. Again, my contention is that you’re [U]not[/U] actually “sure”, and neither am I, and neither is anyone else.
Your channel (just like mine, or anyone else’s) isn’t real and objective and something of which prices (or even probably other traders) acknowledge the existence in any meaningful or predictive sense; it’s easy to attribute to it powers that it doesn’t have. But like everything else, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if you collate evidence that these trades show a net profit over a statistically significant number of outcomes, then by no means let any smart alecs (or lexies) posting in forums dissuade you from trading them: all I’m suggesting is that you shouldn’t [U]assume[/U] or [U]imagine[/U] that they’re going to be profitable, collectively, without [I]evidence[/I] for the belief. And that requires a lot of methodical, meticulous testing (preferably on a demo account, in this case, as my own hunch is that they won’t be! I may be wrong, of course, but that’s what sometimes happens when you ask others what they think.)
Many things, really: the start of a range, a repeated pattern of fake-outs and retracements; the escalation of dealing-costs without accumulating profits from them, and so on.
I trade quite a lot of break-outs, myself (not from “channels”, per se, admittedly, but the style of trading is similar), and for what it’s worth (if anything) I’ve found - following the teaching of Bob Volman, who’s an expert on this subject - that “second breaks” are quite good, overall. One has to find a tradable compromise, that suits one’s style, in-between “going in too often and finding that it was only a fake-out rather than a breakout” on the one hand and “regularly missing the boat”, on the other. (Edited to add, for clarity: by “second breaks” I mean “[I]in the original direction[/I]”, rather than “reverse breaks which demonstrate that the first was only a fake-out”.)
As with everything else, there will never be a perfect answer to this: it’s all about probabilities, and how reliable is the evidence for them.
[I][U]In general[/U][/I], I’d venture to suggest, “staying in the market longer than you need to” and “repeated entries and exits” are both things to avoid, overall, because they build up both risk-exposure and dealing-costs.
It was intended sarcastically/ironically (I hope!!), as a light-hearted, friendly way of saying “If you’re going to do something really silly, why not even increase the stakes as well, at the same time”. I wouldn’t do it, anyway! 
I ‘spun’ this week past, when you first do it feels like an admission of failure, you think to yourself ‘the broker thinks I’m a fool, cant make up my mind which way to go’ or similar thoughts.
Almost always when I’ve spun I have won, then I remember L Williams - “spinners are winners”.
The only cautionary note - it takes practice to know when you are wrong - fast.
I’m not altogether sure that Larry Williams’ idea of “spinning” is exactly the same as everyone else’s, given what the regulators had to say, after his repeated losses of millions of dollars of his clients’ money, about his “deceptive and unbalanced promotional material and disclosure statements”. 
In my world “spinning” has a whole entirely different meaning. One we won’t go into here!!!