Our 400,000 Trade Test Proves Using Stops Is Not Very Bright

[botpro]

Nothing quantified. "Stops hurt" you say!?

Stops hurt if sent to the broker.
Stops should be handled locally not remotely by the broker.

Some tight and also some wide stops hurt the performance of most systems.
It depends on the system and also on the parameters of the traded instrument, especially with options.

So, what is it exactly that you still don't grasp?

 

[samuel11]

Can you also contribute to the discussion by something different than posting some childish images?

Sure! Here is my contribution: Surf is wrong because he makes way too many flawed assumptions and cannot grasp the difference between theory and practice.

And you are doing the same thing haha

 

[marketsurfer]

Sure, any time.

And $93 at risk isn't risk. It's lunch for two.

It doesn't matter. Amounts have nothing to do with our bet.

Bottom line is You lost the bet and refuse to pay.

Tells me all I need to know.

I am very surprised and disappointed about that situation-- your prodigious derivative knowledge takes second place to not paying a lost bet in the real world.

 

[profitlocker]

It's unclear if you're distinguishing between automated and discretionary traders using the same 5 minute double bottom setup?

The statistically based algorithm wouldn't know or even care about the pattern or chart interval. It's simply a predator (if designed properly) that estimates shifts in supply and demand at advantageous price points. A good discretionary trader can visually do this, but his execution better be quick

 

[botpro]

Sure! Here is my contribution: Surf is wrong because he makes way too many flawed assumptions and cannot grasp the difference between theory and practice.
And you are doing the same thing haha

What you wrote above is unclear, ie. it's wishi-washi...
Can you also be specific in what you exactly mean?

 

[samuel11]

It depends on the system and also on the parameters of the traded instrument, especially with options.

A stop on options? Please!

Suppose you sell your put on a $100 stock for $3. Expiration in 90 days.

A week later, some “unexpected” event makes the price drop to 50 at the open. Where was your stop again?

Where you completely fail in your logic, is that you did not sell that put to a computer. You sold it to a human being, as any MM will adjust price and vols either manually or automatically.

You can place an order to cover your put for $5 or whatever stupid price you think it is worth, but the owner of that put will make sure you feel the pain and only transact with you at their price. And that is when you will blow up, despite your “superior intellectual capabilities”, because you run tests on simulated data lol

 

[marketsurfer]

The statistically based algorithm wouldn't know or even care about the pattern or chart interval. It's simply a predator (if designed properly) that estimates shifts in supply and demand at advantageous price points. A good discretionary trader can visually do this, but his execution better be quick

As I said, their "reality tunnel" has blinded them to the facts. Reality does not not exist for them beyond the "chart".

They simply can't understand. Like religious fanatics arguing flat earth ----

 

[samuel11]

What you wrote above is unclear, ie. it's wishi-washi...
Can you also be specific in what you exactly mean?

If you don’t like it, don’t read it!

 

[destriero]

It doesn't matter. You lost the bet and refuse to pay. Tells me all I need to know. I am very surprised and disappointed about that situation-- your prodigious derivative knowledge takes second place to not paying a lost bet in the real world.

F*ck no, I had zero intention of paying off the $10K. Ask yourself why I would wager a larger sum when you had repeatedly (for two hours) avoided providing the proof required by the previous wager. IT WAS BAIT. I had zero intention of paying-out. I was toying with the idea of $100K, but obviously you would've balked. I was only interested in proving that the digital was a joke in terms of $risk -- and you dove right in.

 

[marketsurfer]

F*ck no, I had zero intention of paying off the $10K. Ask yourself why I would wager a larger sum when you had repeatedly (for two hours) avoided providing the proof required by the previous wager. IT WAS BAIT. I had zero intention of paying-out. I was toying with the idea of $100K, but obviously you would've balked. I was only interested in proving that the digital was a joke in terms of payout -- and you dove right in.

Wow! The bet was for $1000. I never expected $10,000. So you baited me ---you must be proud of yourself --- You just don't want to pay.