Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I’m confused… If the entry was based on higher TF – than looking at a higher TF is no change in “tactics”. Same goes for MM & Risk. But you suggested, or my understanding was, to CHANGE the initial entry logic to another logic, while in the tade- and my response was based on this “tactic”. G.
Yes I see you confused. I didn’t mean to give a system of any sort just an hint of another way to manage a losing trade using the fact that the market is fractal-like. Let me try with a (admittedly cherry picked) example.
I found another approach: using the fractal dimension of the market.
I have similar ideas in mind, just the other way round: not shifting SL to a higher TF if I ‘dislike’ it, but shift my TP to a higher TF instead after price has moved in my favoured direction to a certain extent. I would consider price coming close to my initial TP a good point to start such an algorithm. I considered implementing this based on stacked TZ/RZ probabilities, yet haven’t figured out any details until now. Widening my SL under such circumstances appears too risky to me. I would fully support gg53’s arguments in this case.
I do it as well. The problem is that the SL becomes too small for the higher TF volatility. You have to bank some pips before shifting. My way is to add to the winner (perhaps too aggresively…). When it is time to take profits I close all the pyramid but the best one. The high TF may adopt it or not.
I’m against this kind of “strategy”
It is not strategy it is tactic.1- It is against your initial Entry logic
Per definition, of course, as it is a recovery trade!1- It is against your… MM
It has to be included into. But the losses are linear in the number of pips. An average down is quadratic and a marty is exponential.1- It is against your…risk management
It *IS* the risk management!1- …introducing “hope”, expectation and guess work
Not at all. Any decision comes from a statistically based decision. The trading decision comes from the higher TF. Also the decision includes the option to decline the adoption of the trade and stopping immediately. The hedging is much more a guess work and hope with no logic. Fighting to reduce the gap between the long and the short in order to only manage BE is in my opinion a waste of energy since the RR drops to 0. The multi-dimensional approach maintains the expectancy of the system.2. It will keep you in the market for much longer
Absolutely correct. The time is super linear in the pips to recover.2. consuming margin
No more than at the open time since the lot size doen’t change.2. and exposing you to yet another market changes.
Isn’t it the very exact reason of the idea? Except if it changes on the higher TF too, in this case it becomes a loser on the higher TF. The next-higher level can now accept or reject the adoption.I read this thread with great interest as I’m searching for something along these lines too. About the management of the losing trades it was suggested 3 solutions: 1/ take the loss 2/ average down 3/ hedge. I found another approach: using the fractal dimension of the market. If you dislike your trade on the TF you opened it, perhaps you would like it on a higher TF. It goes against the “never widen your SL” but if you move to a higher TF your target will adjusts to this new environment as well. It’s not about closing at BE! The RR and the probability stay roughly the same because you decide based on the same strategies. The duration of the trade increases (a lot). If none of the higher TF like the trade, close it. Of course this forbids an aggressive MM. You have to be able to absorb a 300 or 500 pip DD. It shall hurt, not kill. The PT becomes a hierarchy of PTs.