Thread: pip mark up

I Only want some opinion from Each when they Put up their pip stop/lose when trading e.g 3-10pip or prior to the previous day of the currency Exchange... thank

As for me, I discover my trades are becoming more successful the farther the stop-loss... Not as great for risk/reward ratio, but be sure you get a fantastic entry and provide a good 20 pips (30 much of the time) for almost any stop-hunting or irregular volatility.

Fantastic point. R:r ratio is one.

Originally Posted by ;

PersonallyI find my transactions are becoming more successful the farther the stop-loss... Not as great for risk/reward ratio, but make sure you get a fantastic entry and give a good 20 pips (30 substantially of the time) for any stop-hunting or irregular volatility.

IMHO w/o an understanding of r. Using r:r can help u screen what transaction to take. If I have two transactions. 1 w/ 1:3 r:Hybrid and 2nd in 1:1.5. All things being even I'll take the 1:3 and pass onto the 1:1.5. W/o a way of discovering r.

Originally Posted by ;

Good point. Indicator:r ratio is among those things designed to make people eliminate money.

1 Attachment(s) This is how I understand and determine the r:r. Not a commerce recomendation by any way.

The below chart is your 1 Hour USD/CHF. Both yellow lines in 1.2487 and 1.2482 is my determined support zone. The yellow line in 1.2525 is your projected take profit.

When I place on a trade at the moment and buy at 1.2494 my s'l is determined by my support zone. I decide I will place a halt at 1.2482 (bottom of the zone. My risk is 12 PIPS. My TP is 1.2525 or 31 pips over my buy. (Spreads are not figured in this calc for simplifiion, though one must figure them into a true calc.)
My r:r determined by dividing my potential profit at risk:
31/12 = 2.58
So I've a 1:2.58 ratio on the commerce.

How to Have a beter r:r. Wait and buy at 1.2491. Risk is 9 PIPS adn TP is 34 PIPS. (You do not correct the risk or the TP to improve the r:r, you adjust the buy)
my r:r is improved :
34/9 = 3.78, or a 1:3.78 ratio.
If my aim is to exchange this pair then I would wait until price reaches 1.2491 as IMHO less than a 1:3 r:r is not worth trading.

Originally Posted by ;

IMHO w/o an understanding of r:r you will struggle. Using r:r can help u screen what trade to take. If I have two transactions. 1 w/ 1:3 r:Hybrid and 2nd at 1:1.5. All things being I'll take the 1:3 and pass on the 1:1.5. W/o a way of determining r.

How much you win or lose is undoubtedly the least important thing in trading. What matters is how much you win/lose and how often. Rratios on individual transactions imply nothing.

Individual trades in nothing that is mean.

What I am attempting to point out is that those individuel trades accumulate. If u consistenetly accept low volatility: r trades that your agregate ratio is currently begging na be much lower than if you choose higher ratio trades.

If I own a system which generates consistent 50% winning trades I need that 50% trades to be around a 1:3 ratio profit. By taking lower r:r trades my ratio is begging t be 1:1.5 or less. My time is better spent looking for ratio trades. With the proper r:r one may have a system which generates less than 50% winners and stil be. (Proper MM is a must of course)
This is only my opinion. 1 decides their own trading procedure.

Originally Posted by ;

Just how much you win or lose is by far the least important thing in trading. What's how often and how far you win/lose. Rratios on trades imply nothing.

I don't understand why folks set up to win a fraction of the time. You can risk 3 to win 1 and still be profitable. Each one says'oh, you need to win 80 percent of the time' or anything like this. My response is,'so?' .

Originally Posted by ;

Individual trades in general mean nothing.

What I am attempting to point out is that those individuel trades accumulate. If u consistenetly take low r:r trades that your ratio is begging na be lower than if you take higher ratio trades.

If I own a system that generates consistent 50% winning trades I want that 50% trades to be around a 1:3 ratio profit. By taking lower r:r trades my ratio is begging t be 1:1.5 or less. My time is better spent looking for ratio trades. With the r:r stil be and one may have. (Suitable MM is a need of course)
That is only my view. 1 ultimetly decides their trading method.

Originally Posted by ;

Individual transactions in general mean nothing.

What I am attempting to point out is that those individuel transactions accumulate. If u consistenetly accept low volatility: r transactions that your ratio is currently gon na be much lower than if you take ratio transactions.

If I have a system which produces consistent 50% winning trades I need that 50% transactions to be around a 1:3 ratio profit. By taking lower r:r transactions my ratio is begging t be 1:1.5 or even less. My time is better spent looking for greater ratio transactions. With the proper r:r stil be and one may have a system which produces less than 50% champions. (Suitable MM is a need of course)
That is only my view. One ultimetly decides their trading procedure.

I used to exchange 1risk:1reward with a 75% success rate. I have a 1risk:3reward with a 40% success rate . My max reward if I had been right 100% of the time on a 1:1 is 10 reward /10 risked. Now I be right 50 percent of the time on a 1:3 and only could have 10 reward. I like not needing to be much. Is not that the entire point of specialized analysis; being able to identify risk in likelihood trades?

The casino industry understands this . Sure u can risk $3 to acquire $1, but why? It takes u 4 drops to get. Unless of course you choose to risk $9 to win back your $3. If one transactions an 80 stategy w r: r and / this kind of MM and they will be hard pressed to stay even.

Originally Posted by ;

I don't know why folks set up to acquire just a small percent of the time. You can risk 3 to acquire 1 and still be profitable. Each one says'oh, you need to win 80 percent of the time' or something like this. My reply is,'so?' .