FOREX

ale generalnie jest spadek

leyus 2 pytania:
1. jak jakiś kraj może "sztucznie" utrzymywać kurs swojej waluty?
2. czytałem kilka poradników i wiele pisze żeby nie inwestować więcej niż 1% całego portwela naraz. w takim razie po co trzymać te pozostałe 99% portwela?
zawsze gram jakimiś 90% na oandzie (na forex.com grałem 50%, bo tam inaczej rozliczało). jak bym grał 1% np z 500 funtów to 20% zysku bym miał około emerytury

1. jak jakiś kraj może "sztucznie" utrzymywać kurs swojej waluty?

nie moze :D a jak probuje to jest glupi, patrz Polandia :D Ponownie makroekonomia wiec sie nie znam, z tego co pamietam Kazdy kraj ma rezerwy walutowe zwykle w USD czasami troche w EUR. Od tego jak duzo ich masz i stanu gospodarki bo sa one niejako gwarantem ze twoja waluta ma na swiecie jakas wartosc. Teraz hipotetycznie zalozmy ze spada zlotowka.... gospodarka ma sie dobrze, wiec sepkulacyjne *****e moga uplynnic rezerwy USD lub EUR a takowe sa zwykle duze, uplynnienie takich ilosci powoduje ze zloty znouw rosnie ale tak naprawde to stracil bo kraj stracil rezerwy co za tym idzie zabezpieczenie ktore gwarantowalo ze zloty ma jakas wartosc! Oczywiscie jezeli gospodarka jest ok, i wymuslili ta sprzedaza wzrost zlotego + gospodarka zrobila swoje to odkupili rezerwy taniej.... ale to jest spekulacja czysciutka i na dluzsza mete predzej czy pozniej ich timing okaze sie do dupy i skoncza jak twoje portfele :D Zwyczajnie nie mozna ryzykowac 1000 pipsow liczac na 20 zysku i tak smao to dziala w wielkim swiecie, nie mozesz uplynnic calych rezerw liczac na to ze rpzez chwile da ci to wzrost wartosci waluty, wiec jezeli faktycznie tak robia (a tak mowia legendy :D) to walna na ryja predzej czy pozniej.

2. czytałem kilka poradników i wiele pisze żeby nie inwestować więcej niż 1% całego portwela naraz. w takim razie po co trzymać te pozostałe 99% portwela?
zawsze gram jakimiś 90% na oandzie (na forex.com grałem 50%, bo tam inaczej rozliczało). jak bym grał 1% np z 500 funtów to 20% zysku bym miał około emerytury.

Nieprawda. Po pierwsze to pisza 0,5% do 3% na tranzakcje!. Zwykle poniewaz wiedza ze poradniki pisane dla swiezakow polcaja 1% i od tylu bym polecal zaczynac. Teraz tak, czy 1% oznacza faktycznie 1% ryzyka? Nie bo to jest 1% na tranzakcje. A co jezeli trafi ci sie 10 albo 15 nieduanych tranzakcji pod rzad?!?!? To zaryzykowales i straciles 10-15% a trafic sie moze. Wyobraz sobie identyczna sytuacje jezlei ryzykujesz 3%!!!! Poaptrz ile tracisz. A co jak wiecej? 10 tranzakcji pod rzad trafia sie niaml w kazdym systemie! Malo tego, zalozmy ze otwierasz jedna tranzakcje, za chwile sygnal leci z twojego systmeu kupna i otwierasz druga, a potme trzecia i tak masz rownoczensie na przyklad 5%!!!!

Zauwaz tez ze ryzykowanie 1% kapitalu nie oznacza uzycia 1% marginu!!! To nie to samo. Margin zalezy od tego jaka masz dziwgnie glownie. Czyli na koncie 1:50 bedziesz musial miec mniej aksy zeby operowac niz na konic 1:400. W przypadku marginu poelca sie trzymac okolo 20% zeby stac po bezpiecznej stronie i nie ryzykowac w nadmiarze.

1% dotyczy tego ile ryzykujesz w danej tranzakcji czyli na ile stop - loss ustawiles mialem gdzies dobry opis zaraz ci znajde i wkleje.

I nie prawda jest ze zejdzie ci do emerytury zajrzyj na strone 23 tego tematu dojscie do miliona od 1000 rozpisane jest na 4 lata niecale i sam se policz jakie ryzyko. Wiekszosc systemow zaklada ze obstawiajac na 20 pipsow chces zryzykoac 10-20 pipsow straty. Jezlei koles rozpisuje ze w tyg z 1000 robisz 1100 to jest 10% zysku. Rozpisane na 5 tranzakcji po 20 pipsow to w kazdej masz tylko 2% zysku! Jezeli 2% zysku to zwykle ryzykujesz przy dobrym systemie 1%. to sie nazywa risk reward ratio 2:1 i to nic nadzwyczajnego jednak, dobre systemy jak pamietam cec***a sie takim ratio na poziomi 3:1 lub wiecej.

Zaraz ci wkleje dobry artykul dlaczego 1% sekunda.

Stops will not protect you from leverage that is too high. It will actually hurt you by depleting your account faster. Why? Because in order to reduce the amount of dollars lost, you will have to set a stop loss that is smaller than the technicals for that trade allow. The odds of your stop getting hit increase enormously. You will get stop after stop after stop, until your account is decimated.
The correct sequence is this:
FIRST Determine your stop in pips,
SECOND determine your position size based on percent risk and
THIRD see what your resultant leverage is. If the resultant leverage is too high, then lower your percent risk for the given stop size.

Notice that leverage comes LAST not FIRST. If you put leverage first you are jeopardizing your account. Let me attempt to illustrate with a couple of examples.

The Correct Way (Trader 1)
Account size = $10,000
Currency = EUR/USD (just so I can use simple numbers)
Stop (based on technicals) = 30 pips
Risk = 2% of your Account = $200
Lot size = Mini = 10,000
Pip value for a Mini lot on EUR/USD = $1
Stop of 30 pips * $1 per pip = $30
Position size = $200 / $30 = 6.67 mini lots.
Since you cannot trade fractional lots (forget Oanda) you must round the position size DOWN to 6. Always round down to be more conservative.
True Leverage = Position Size / Account Size = 60,000 / 10,000 = 6:1
This level of leverage is too high if you lack experience. Better to reduce your percent risk from 2% down to 1%. That will reduce the leverage to 3:1 in this case.


The Wrong Way (Trader 2)
I want to get rich fast, so I want $50 a pip. Therefore, I will trade five standard lots of 100,000!
Leverage = 500,000 / 10,000 = 50:1 (Yeehaw! Now we're cookin'!)
Risk = 2% of $10,000 = $200
Okay, let's see, $200 / $50 per pip = a stop size of 4. Huh? Shoot! My broker wont let me set a stop size less than 10 pips. Aw what the hell! I'll risk 10 pips times $50 per pip for $500 risk. That's not bad. It's only 5% of my account. I'll go for it 'cause I KNOW this trade is a hot one!

Thirty seconds after this trade is placed, the market moves violently in the WRONG direction due to a terrorist bombing in Toledo. Bye bye $500.

Fast forward. Both traders have had a bad week. They've each placed 5 losing trades in a row. The score?

Trader 1
Starting Balance = $10,000
Ending Balance = $9,000
% drawdown = 10%
% gain needed to recover = 11.11%

Trader 2
Starting Balance = $10,000
Ending Balance = $7,500
% drawdown = 25%
% gain needed to recover = 33.33%

Trader 2 has a larger drawdown, paid more in spread and needs a gain THREE times larger to recover.

TO MAKE PROFIT YOU HAVE TO BE IN THE GAME.
TO BE IN THE GAME, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ACCOUNT.
WHO'S GONNA BE OUT OF THE GAME FIRST, TRADER 1 OR TRADER 2?

The bottom line is this:

Amateur traders look at how much they can make.
Professional traders look at how much they can lose.

Amateur traders try to increase profits by raising leverage.
Professional traders protect their capital by lowering leverage.

Amateur traders try to make each trade a big winner.
Professional traders know that individual trades (win or lose) are meaningless.

Amateur traders become one of the 95% who lose all their money.
Professional traders become one of the 5% who get rich in the long run

Amateur traders count on luck and hope to win.
Professional traders count on the statistical edge of their trading method to win using low leverage combined with compounding over a long series of trades.

Amatuers lose.
Professionals win.

Which do you want to be?

Back when I was using too much leverage, I knew it, but only reduced it a little and not enough. What changed me? A single sentence from Fiji cautioning me that high leverage would eventually bite me. Why did it only take a single sentence from Fiji? Because I have enough sense to realize that Fiji is where I want to be (His trading success, not the island he lives on, although that would be nice too )

Listen to Fiji, he offers his help for free that no one could afford to pay for if he chose to charge for it. The same is true for all the successful traders on this forum. They don't have to be here. They are here because they want to help. Don't anyone be a fool and not listen to Fiji or any of the others.

If all the successful traders are telling you NOT to use high leverage, then that should be reason enough to heed their advice now without understanding why. The understanding will come later. Take it on faith for now and keep your leverage below 3:1 if you are a newbie.

Here's one more thing using the correct example (for Trader 1) given above, but with varying stop size:

Account Size = $10,000
Percent Risk = 2% = $200

Stop MiniLots Leverage
30 6 6:1
25 8 8:1
20 10 10:1
15 13 13:1
10 20 20:1

It is given that 30 pips is the correct stop for this trade based on technicals (support/resistance, trendlines, pivot levels, fibonacci levels and price action just to name a few).

It is therefore inappropriate to reduce the size of the stop just to get a higher leverage. Yet this is what amateurs do. They say to themselves, Hey! I can risk the same amount of money ($200) and get $20 a pip instead of a measley $6 a pip. I'm gonna do it!

Big mistake. Your stops will get hit more often and will gradually wear away your account over time. Don't do it.

Okay, have I thoroughly confused everyone? Ask more questions if you still don't understand why you do NOT want to use high leverage.

Dial

Masz idelane porownanie miedzy kolesiem ryzykujacym 1% a kolesiem ryzykujacym 5%. Zobacz jak zrojnowane jest jego konto po 5 stratach, wyobraz sobie 10-15 pod rzad. A testujac pierwszy system trafilo mi sie 14 wygranych pod rzad!!! wniosek? Moglo sie prawdopodobnie spokojnie trafic 10-12 strat pod rzad!!!

A i po przeczytnaiu tego juz wyjasniam po co ci pozostale 90% konta. Mozesz grac wiekszymi kwotami i zyskiwac wiecej :D

Mowiaz inaczje jak masz 1000 funtow na koniec i ryzykujesz 1% czyli 10 funtow, to zyskujesz zalenzie od systemu 20-30 funtow. Zgadza sie?

A jak masz 100 000 funtow? to ryzykujesz 1% czyli 1000 funtow! Ale zyskujesz 2000-3000 (albo i wiecje w niektorych systemach.

Mozesz powiedziec ze mozna wlozyc 1000 i zaryzykowac caly i zyskac mozesz tyle samo! Tak ale jezeli sie nie uda tracisz calosc kapitalu! Nie mozesz dalej grac bo nie masz za co! A majac 100 000 i ryzykujac 1% NIGDY nie wypadasz z gry!!! NIGDY!! A to najwazniejsze bo nie ma systemow ktore dadza ci 100% trafnych decyzji, jak ci dadza 60% to sie ciesz! Teraz powedzmy ze amsz wypasiony system co daje ci 75% trafnych decyzji!!! Pytanie czy nadal moze ci sie trafic 10 blednych sygnalow pod rzad? TAK MOZE! Czy ryzykuajc 1% rozwali ci ten system konto?! NIE!! CZy ryzykujac 10% rozwali ci konto? TAK!!! Rozwalenie konta = niemozliwosc dalszej gry, lub tak dlugie odrabianie strat ze traci to sens. Przetrwanie = jezlei systme ma chocby 51% trafnosci oznacza zarabianei pieniedzy! Moze nie duzych ale zarabianie!
Majac fatalne money management (MM) nawet z genialnym systemem mozesz stracic tyle ze szkoda gadac i rozwalic konto. Majac dobry MM, mozesz mec slaby system majacy 49% blednych sygnalow i bedzies znadal zyskiwal poniewaz dlugotemrinowo nawet najdluzsza seria strat pod rzad nie wyrzuci cie z rynku!!!

założone mam obecnie 4 subkonta
1. te w którym się dłubałem od 465ciu (primary account na którym wtopiłem 1 mln procent kasy ) mam tu 165 funtów , generalnie chcę się nauczyć odbijać strat i dojść nim do pierwotnych 465 funtów
2. konto od 500 funtów na którym generalnie się bawię - tu mam około 600 funtów
3. konto tylko na złoto i srebro, tylko tym będę tu grał i też mam 500 funtów
4. konto na którym w jedną transakcję nie będę pchał więcej niż 1% i bawił się wieloma transakcjami

to mi pomoże się więcej nauczyć

na koncie do srebra/złota mam z 500 funtów już 700
, ciekawe jak będzie na dłuższy czas

jasne ;)

167 odrob do 450 policz sobie ile to jest procent :D To sa miesiace albo i lata :D Zapomnij o tym koncie skup sie na innch bo to cie bedzie tylko frustrowac :P

Ide spac 4:30 do roboty

Zmieniony przez - leyus w dniu 2011-03-13 23:21:41

Zmieniony przez - leyus w dniu 2011-03-13 23:21:55

Niech sie wpisze jeden MArian co widzial tyle pipsow:





jest taki?

jest tu wogole ktos? :D kilka miesiecy a wam Mariany zabraklo zapalu :P

MAcie Piotrus podzieli sie z wami odrobina wiedzy zebyscie moze wrocili do gry:

I was doing a seminar with Tom Basso (see his sections in Chapters
3 and 5) in 1991. Tom was explaining that.the most important part
of his system was his exits and his position-sizing algorithms. As a
result, one member of the audience remarked, “From what you are
saying it sounds like you could make money consistently with a
random entry as long as you have good exits and size your positions
intelligently.”
Tom responded that he probably could. He promptfv returned
to his office and tested his own system of exits and posltlon sizing
with a “coin flip”-type entry. In other words, his system simulated
trading four different markets and he was always in the market,
either long or short, based upon a random signal. As soon as he got
an exit signal, he’d reenter the market again based upon the random
signal. Tom’s results showed that he made money consistently,
even using $100 per contract for slippage and commissions.
We subsequently duplicated those results with more markets.
I published them in one of my newsletters and gave several talks
on them. Our system was very simple. We determined the volatility
of the market by a lo-day exponential moving average of the
average true range. Our initial stop was
three times that volatility reading. Once
entry occurred by a coin flip, the same
three-times-volatility stop was trailed
from the close. However, the stop could
only move in our favor. Thus, the stop
moved closer whenever the markets
moved in our favor or whenever volatility
shrank. We also used a 1 percent
risk model for our position-sizing system,
as described in Chapter 12.
That’s it! That’s all there was to the
system-a random entry, plus a trailing
stop that was three times the volatility, plus a 1 percent risk algorithm
to size positions. We ran it on 10 markets. And it was always
in each market, either long or short, depending upon a coin flip. It’s
a good illustration of how simplicity works in system development.
Whenever you run a random entry system, you get different
results. This system made money on 80 percent of the runs when it
only traded one contract per futures market. It made money 100
percent of the time when a simple 1 percent risk money management
system was added. That’s pretty impressive. The system had
a reliability level of 38 percent, which is about average for a trendfollowing
system.

Skoro system oparty na rzucie moneta potrafi zarobic pieniadze a wy nie? :D well done guys :D