- Search Crypto Craft
- 21 Results
- genasea replied Apr 21, 2016
This gives us a current DrawDown of -$50, not -$30 which I had mistakenly put in post #25. This matches the DrawDown of the initially proposed system (-$50) so we have a net gain of $0 between the systems (minus the spread to open a few new ...
- genasea replied Apr 21, 2016
Yonnie, I am done travelling for a bit and am able to revisit this. I looked through the grid comparing your and my grid system (Post #25) and realized I have an error. There should be a 'Buy' at grid level 154.9 where I have it marked as a 'Sell'. ...
- genasea replied Apr 12, 2016
MZ, Thank you for your lengthy reply, I appreciate it. I read through it, but to be honest I need to go back through it again to get through the logic and details for your system. I will be away for a bit, but I will respond in greater detail when I ...
- genasea replied Apr 12, 2016
Yonnie, Very interesting system, I would be curious to hear how your system is working after you get some demo trades under your belt. It sounds like you are being methodical in your approach, rather than discretionary on your entries. How about ...
- genasea replied Apr 11, 2016
Yonnie, Thank you for your suggestion, your logic appears to be very sensible. I will map out an example below to see if it has the same outcome. Also, as for the grid pip size, I would tend to agree with you on increasing the size - I use the 10 ...
- genasea replied Apr 11, 2016
If we take the logic applied to Post #9 or #10 of this thread, and either hedge a long with a short as price travels through the grid, triggering both longs and shorts at each level, or simply close down the opposing trade (as Killian suggested) ...
- genasea replied Apr 11, 2016
David, As usual, your candor is welcome. I especially like your quote above, and I re-read that book often. I find it very helpful, and simplistic - which is refreshing. My current thought on that exact sentence you bring forth is the 'ways to make ...
- genasea replied Apr 11, 2016
MZ, Thank you for sharing. Looks like you have found something that works for your style of trading. I am glad I am not the only one who is not able to see into the future and close trades down at Max P/L - at least we know there are two of us who ...
- genasea replied Apr 11, 2016
Hanover, Thank you for your response. I read through all the posts you recommended and I appreciate your effort in helping people along their path. I can say that you have thought through a LOT of the topics people are faced with. I am not certain ...
- genasea replied Apr 9, 2016
Killian, Thanks for the analytical thoughts in putting this response together. I would agree with much of what you have said at face value. However, I have a few thoughts that may stretch the limits on a couple of these ideas. Everything you mention ...
- genasea replied Apr 6, 2016
Forexmeoff, Thanks for your reply.... You are pretty close in your logic, but you missed some of the entry points in between on your grid (explained below). I would think not opening any order at the start would be the best way, as you let price ...
- genasea replied Apr 6, 2016
Here is another example of where the hedging helps. Here is the no-hedged 5 pip grid on display. It has entered 6 total trades over a spread of about 38 pips. Currently, this system losing $26. If this were conducted the same way as described in the ...
- genasea replied Apr 5, 2016
Or, the math would look like this if we used Killians example of closing the open orders, instead of hedging each of them *without opening any new trades from within the grid after the first one was closed. In this case of using actual hedges (where ...
- genasea replied Apr 5, 2016
On the vein of discussing the drawdown on the grid trend system. Someone may think that the scenario I showed in the spreadsheet was cherry picked to show price back at the exact same level that the grid system was started, thereby maximizing the ...
- genasea replied Apr 5, 2016
You bring up a great point, I have seen many people here on the forum suggest that all hedges can be replicated without taking a trade in the opposite direction, and I agree that in many cases it can be done (this likely being one of those cases), ...
- genasea replied Apr 5, 2016
The system, We start with a grid, buys above, sells below. As price moves up to touch the grid level we buy. At this same time - all the other orders remain, but in addition we also setup a corresponding sell order at the grid level below if price ...
- genasea replied Apr 5, 2016
If we consider that over a large amount of trades, and looked at them on a graph showing the $ amount of each trades winners and losers, we would likely (although not for certain) have a concentrated bulge somewhere along the middle (hopefully to ...
- genasea replied Apr 5, 2016
If we envision a grid that has orders configured on it at pre-determiend levels (buys and sells) according to our preference (that is distance between the orders), we setup how we approach our system initially. Fellow member JaggWaa has graciously ...
- genasea replied Apr 5, 2016
For myself, when trying to develop a system and determine if it will do well, I find it most productive to decide on my objective first, then develop the first round of system rules (an iterative process), then follow along actual prices on a chart ...
- genasea replied Apr 5, 2016
Zigler, sorry to be so blunt, but if you think a system that has drawdowns in excess of 5 times your winning trades, then your calculator may not working well - since it will take more than an 80% win rate just to break even. You said yourself that ...