Search results

Defintely not. I was just trying to point out that "trying to get better entries" is rather idealistic with no quantifiable method. Do you know how you are going to "get a better entry" on your next trade ? The only way I could imagine one confiming that he/she will get "a better enry" on...

increasing risk can be accomplished by increasing size, but not necesarily. risk can also be increased by placing stops further our, or risk increase can even just be a result of decreased equity. Sorry if I hurt you feelings. I didn't think that "clown" was a grave insult in any country...

Take it to the Yahoo stock boards. I'm sure you will find conversation of a more compatible intelectual level there.

^^ Another clown that shoots off his mouth before taking the time to read or understand. Again, increasing risk does nor necesarily imply increasing trade size

You have obviously not taken the time to digest the ideas posted in this thread. You can "dig yourself in a hole" just as easily, or probably easier, if you do not increase risk after a loss. This is not my "oppinion", this is just simple math that is simple to apply and observe in any...

Ok clear, I entirely endorse that idea ... increasing "real risk" after a loss is a good strategy, we agree :) Yes, this is the point of the thread as well as explaining different ways to analyse risk and how to manage it (rate of risk increase, absolute thresholds ... etc). I have seen too...

if you lose 20 pips 5 consecutive times, you now need 100 pip JUST TO BREAK EVEN, and only if you maintain same trade size. Furthermore, if you do in fact maintain same trade size (and same stop distance), this necessarily implies that you ARE in fact increasing risk.

See post on page 6 at 10-18-06 10:05 PM If you "forget the last trade in regards to its P&L" after a loss, your net profit will be significantly reduced unless your targets become significantly further out. Also, maintaining targets that are reasonably attainable is in fact part of managing risk.

To illustrate your example, you will have to be more precise. If you maintain costant size of trade, you are using proportionaly larger size trades after a loss. For example, 1K trade size of a 10K account = 10% trade size. After a 10% loss, account is 9K ... a 1K trade is now 11% trade size...

The principle here is that "gains must not only be larger that accumulated losses, but gains must also be accumulated at a faster rate that preceeding loses. Lets look at a simple (and grosly exagerated) example: FIXED RISK METHOD WITH A 5 TRADE LOSING STREAK : - lose 20 pips - lose 20...

JJ, Just to correct a misconception you may have : You said "...But OK, if you increase your RISK based on volatility... I do NOT increase risk because of higher volatility... I just increase the stop distance.... and because of the greater distance on the stop, I reduce trade size in...

If I may get slightly off topic here and evoke part of the technical entry paart of my system (which is realy not all that important compared to the risk management aspect), I have 2 questions for all of you. 1) What do you ALWAYS find imediately after a top when looking at a candlestick...

Anything can work until it doesn't. Many accounts have been blown using all sorts of different technics. If I were loking for a gaurantee of some sort I certainly would not be trading FX.

My model places stop distance in consideration of volatility calculations (higher volatility = further stops & proportionaly smaller size to maintain desired risk... vice versa for lower volatility). Target is then calculated according to a combination of both valatility (larger targets in...

Again, let us clarify something; RISK CAN BE INCREASED WITHOUT INCREASING SIZE OF TRADE. Risk can also be determined by stop distance.

One of the principles on which my system is built is that I assume I don't know where the market is going to go. I have a simple technical method of assigning entries. In consequence, I don't try to "get better entries" (furthermore, I am of the oppinion that one would have to have some...

Also, just to give you an idea of what my model can, and has, sustained, this summer I had 16 consecutive losses on gbp/jpy and came out with an absolute profit. At the worst point, my account sustained a draw down of just over 5%. ... it was a bit of a painful period for me, but I was able to...

My model involves increasing risk after a losing trade proportionaly to the increase of a volatility range. Therefore, for example, if I risk 0.2% at the begining of a "series", and then the market stops me out and increases my volatility range by X, my next trade might be risking say 0.243%...

Increasing risk does not necessarily imply increasing size. There are 2 ways to increase absolute risk, and risk can also be analysed in % terms compared to capital. 1) absolute risk can be increased either by larger size of trade and/or distance of stop. 2) when analysing risk in % terms...

Also, "trade the set up" if you may .. that has nothing to do with your risk. Don't confuse technical set up or direction with measurable risk. The only measurable risk you have is what a given trade can lose.