There’s nothing cryptic about it, a couple of posts up I’ve given a few examples of alternatives … The list is not exhaustive, just a few possibilities from the top of my head, I’m sure if you search this forum, other forums, forex resources and the internet generally you will find other novel ideas. I don’t know why you are so against my advice for people to explore other options, if you are happy with your stop losses then I’m happy for you … No argument, nothing cryptic.
If you want someone to write reports for you … Hire someone.
Edit. Please excuse the apparent tone of this post, I’m not being hostile. Tony
I’m open to hearing other thoughts, but at least back it up with something?
I’ll leave it there - it’s facts & proof, or it doesn’t wash. I’m not being negative, i’m being rational. I want to see the relationship between not using a stop (or alternative methods), and using a stop. I’m genuinely curious.
Again, as suggested in other threads, I will not beat a dead cat because it’s already dead.
I too am always interested in learning, I go out of my way to research other ways of doing things rather than simply following the norm.
One of my above suggestions for people to experiment with was to simply stagger their order. So instead of putting in a buy of say .10 units, put multiples of 0.01 in at various points … If the trade goes against you then you will have been able to stay in it for much longer than a fixed stop loss.
And just how much of this concept gets diminished if the trade does not go against you and hits your TP with only 0.1 lots on the table rather than your total risk of 1.0 lots should you have used a fixed SL.
To hit the full potential of the trade [you] are assuming the trade will go against you by enough of a margin to trigger all of your staggered 0.1 orders, up to the total 1.0 lots, correct? Which in simple terms means you’re not even entering the trade at the correct level anyway, correct?
These are the statistics im interested in, and from a logical viewpoint they are totally inversely correlated, meaning zero advantage (over time).
Not correct, you’re being disingenuous if you pretend not to understand the logic involved.
You are applying the strategy to your own system and seeing no benefit. Apply it to someone who is being stopped out constantly and they ‘may’ find it useful.
I am encouraging people to experiment if they are losing instead of repeating the things that are not working for them.
Right, so now we are getting somewhere - it’s an approach for traders who have no idea what they are doing and so extending the margin of error that the market can move against them whilst keeping their risk constant. Understood.
I’ll leave this now - I think it’s quite clear.
Edit: I’m really trying to have a constructive conversation here, but you’re not helping.
I’m sure you’re right, I certainly don’t question that and I applaud that approach. With a big enough bank roll you can certainly use that approach, too - but that’s not the case in this forum with these members?
I was simply trying to get to the details of your suggestion - and i’m not annoyed, i’m just let down that there isn’t even a real example on the table where this could be shown as beneficial.
^^This literally was your first post in the thread. So we all want an explanation.
You’re right not all successful traders use SL. We are just trying to understand your alternative method & the benefit behind it. All you really said was divide up the positions 10 times and pretty much spread the trade out. I’d love to hear some clarification as well. Did you potentially use this strategy? If so has it been successful and what’s your rule of thumb for this method? How would one calculate a method like this in regards to SLs?
Those who repeat the same process - over and over - whilst expecting different results are simply deluded.
The 95% all sing from the same hymn sheet !
There are no “Sacred” rules in this game - Each and every rule is open to interpretation and disobedience if that is what the gambler thinks will give him / her an edge !
Just be aware that the rule must be broken in a thoughtful way - not just out of frustration or on a whim !
Stops are definitely a double edged sword which need to be carefully studied before incorporation into a system.
Couldn’t agree more, and that’s why I was asking probing questions to @Barrigan - not to create a negative tone, but to ask WHY this is beneficial. Because in my view, if you have to spread your total risk behind your initial entry point then it means you have got the fundamentals totally wrong (this is simply keeping you alive longer before eventually dying) - rather you should be focusing on a better entry approach.
he’s down -60% against values deposited according to his live public account - i’d rather not ask him anything… have we all gone crazy, what am I reading here?
1st. Why would I want Rram to give me an understanding of what @Barrigan said? (Does that even make sense?)
Rram posted his strategy & @Barrigan said the big players are hunting our SLs. (I mean I literally quoted what I’m trying to find out it couldn’t get any clearer than that).
Again his answer didn’t really add any value so for me it was a waste of comment if he couldn’t elaborate on what he was saying.
