The Beginner’s Guide to Setting Up the Metatrader Forex ...
How to Set Up Your Accounts Forex Account - NegativeBalances
How to Set up a Demo Account in Forex Trading
Forex Basics: Setting Up an Account - Investopedia
How to Open a Forex Trading Account - BabyPips.com
Special Report How to Set Up a Forex Account
Im looking for guidance for a trader with experience. (Read Please)
I'm looking for guidance from* a trader with experience. I'm 17 years old. I've been learning the markets for about 6 months now and when I turn 18 in 4 months, Ill be going hard on trading. People will think I'm young and naïve about my trading. I admit there's a lot I don't know. In my opinion, the stuff I don't know. Are things you must learn through experience. - What I am truly asking is if someone with trading experience would be able to maybe setup a meet with me so we can have a conversation and talk. If anybody was willing to be my mentor id literally be up 24/7 to learn from you. I would like to discuss a few things about my strategy and what my next steps should be from this point on. Honestly all advice helps See i know my strategy works through backtesting and demos and I'm still refining my trading strategy but even then nothing is set in stone because I'm in my first 6 months. If i told this community i think i could hop in the markets and make profit with my strategy by making 1-3 trades a week. Id be laughed, memed and destroyed but i truly do believe that. Since I've started this journey I haven't been able to talk to anyone about cause nobody fuckin understands - FOR THAT REASON, is why i need to talk to someone with experience. I will tell you my strategy and how i learned it and my whole plan. We can talk about anything forex related but if someone could sit down wit me for like a couple hours... that'd honestly be goated. DISCLAIMER - Save your ''you wont be making profits, you'll blow your account, your to confident" comments for someone else. Trust me i know yo, the way i think i can trade is literally the most cockiest thing ever. That's why I'm scared. I don't know where I'm going to mess up. I feel like i got the byakugan of forex and some kunai boutta hit my blind spot. (if u get that reference your already successful in my eyes) I also know that im going to lose trades. Obviously but I'm not concerned with my risk management style.
I have a habit of backtesting every strategy I find as long as it makes sense. I find it fun, and even if the strategy ends up being underperforming, it gives me a good excuse to gain valuable chart experience that would normally take years to gather. After I backtest something, I compare it to my current methodology, and usually conclude that mine is better either because it has a better performance or the new method requires too much time to manage (Spoiler: until now, I like this better) During the last two days, I have worked on backtesting ParallaxFx strategy, as it seemed promising and it seemed to fit my personality (a lazy fuck who will happily halve his yearly return if it means he can spend 10% less time in front of the screens). My backtesting is preliminary, and I didn't delve very deep in the data gathering. I usually track all sort of stuff, but for this first pass, I sticked to the main indicators of performance over a restricted sample size of markets. Before I share my results with you, I always feel the need to make a preface that I know most people will ignore.
I am words on your screen. You cannot trust me. I could have edited this or literally just typed random numbers on a spreadsheet. Do your own research if you want to trust my conclusion.
Even if you trust me, you need to do backtesting for yourself. The goal of backtesting isn't simply to figure out whether a strategy has an edge: it's a way to get used to how the market flows (valuable experience you will bring on to any other strategy) and how the strategy behaves. You need to see it with your own eyes to allow your subconscious mind to be at ease when it comes time to trade it live: the only way to truly trust your strategy during a period of drawdown, is to have seen it work over hundreds of trades in the past.
Strategy I am not going to go into the strategy in this thread. If you haven't read the series of threads by the guy who shared it, go here. As suggested by my mentioned personality type, I went with the passive management options of ParallaxFx's strategy. After a valid setup forms, I place two orders of half my risk. I add or remove 1 pip from each level to account for spread.
The first at the 23.6 retracement.
The second at the 38.2 retracement.
Both orders have a stop loss at the 78.6 retracement.
Both orders have the same target at the -100.0 extension.
If price moves to the -38.2 extension, I delete any unfilled orders.
I do not scale out, I do not move to breakeven, I place my orders and walk away.
Sample I tested this strategy over the seven major currency pairs: AUDUSD, USDCAD, NZDUSD, GBPUSD, USDJPY, EURUSD, USDCHF. The time period started on January 1th 2018 and ended on July 1th 2020, so a 2.5 years backtest. I tested over the D1 timeframe, and I plan on testing other timeframes. My "protocol" for backtesting is that, if I like what I see during this phase, I will move to the second phase where I'll backtest over 5 years and 28 currency pairs. Units of measure I used R multiples to track my performance. If you don't know what they are, I'm too sleepy to explain right now. This article explains what they are. The gist is that the results you'll see do not take into consideration compounding and they normalize volatility (something pips don't do, and why pips are in my opinion a terrible unit of measure for performance) as well as percentage risk (you can attach variable risk profiles on your R values to optimize position sizing in order to maximize returns and minimize drawdowns, but I won't get into that). Results I am not going to link the spreadsheet directly, because it is in my GDrive folder and that would allow you to see my personal information. I will attach screenshots of both the results and the list of trades. In the latter, I have included the day of entry for each trade, so if you're up to the task, you can cross-reference all the trades I have placed to make sure I am not making things up. Overall results: R Curve and Segmented performance. List of trades: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Something to note: I treated every half position as an individual trade for the sake of simplicity. It should not mess with the results, but it simply means you will see huge streaks of wins and losses. This does not matter because I'm half risk in each of them, so a winstreak of 6 trades is just a winstreak of 3 trades. For reference:
Profit Factor: 2.34
Return: 100.47 R
Strike rate: 48.28%
Average win: 2.51 R
Average loss: -1.00 R
Thoughts Nice. I'll keep testing. As of now it is vastly better than my current strategy.
Disclaimer: None of this is financial advice. I have no idea what I'm doing. Please do your own research or you will certainly lose money. I'm not a statistician, data scientist, well-seasoned trader, or anything else that would qualify me to make statements such as the below with any weight behind them. Take them for the incoherent ramblings that they are. TL;DR at the bottom for those not interested in the details. This is a bit of a novel, sorry about that. It was mostly for getting my own thoughts organized, but if even one person reads the whole thing I will feel incredibly accomplished.
For those of you not familiar, please see the various threads on this trading system here. I can't take credit for this system, all glory goes to ParallaxFX! I wanted to see how effective this system was at H1 for a couple of reasons: 1) My current broker is TD Ameritrade - their Forex minimum is a mini lot, and I don't feel comfortable enough yet with the risk to trade mini lots on the higher timeframes(i.e. wider pip swings) that ParallaxFX's system uses, so I wanted to see if I could scale it down. 2) I'm fairly impatient, so I don't like to wait days and days with my capital tied up just to see if a trade is going to win or lose. This does mean it requires more active attention since you are checking for setups once an hour instead of once a day or every 4-6 hours, but the upside is that you trade more often this way so you end up winning or losing faster and moving onto the next trade. Spread does eat more of the trade this way, but I'll cover this in my data below - it ends up not being a problem. I looked at data from 6/11 to 7/3 on all pairs with a reasonable spread(pairs listed at bottom above the TL;DR). So this represents about 3-4 weeks' worth of trading. I used mark(mid) price charts. Spreadsheet link is below for anyone that's interested.
I'm pretty much using ParallaxFX's system textbook, but since there are a few options in his writeups, I'll include all the discretionary points here:
I'm using the stop entry version - so I wait for the price to trade beyond the confirmation candle(in the direction of my trade) before entering. I don't have any data to support this decision, but I've always preferred this method over retracement-limit entries. Maybe I just like the feeling of a higher winrate even though there can be greater R:R using a limit entry. Variety is the spice of life.
I put my stop loss right at the opposite edge of the confirmation candle. NOT at the edge of the 2-candle pattern that makes up the system. I'll get into this more below - not enough trades are saved to justify the wider stops. (Wider stop means less $ per pip won, assuming you still only risk 1%).
All my profit/loss statistics are based on a 1% risk per trade. Because 1 is real easy to multiply.
There are definitely some questionable trades in here, but I tried to make it as mechanical as possible for evaluation purposes. They do fit the definitions of the system, which is why I included them. You could probably improve the winrate by being more discretionary about your trades by looking at support/resistance or other techniques.
I didn't use MBB much for either entering trades, or as support/resistance indicators. Again, trying to be pretty mechanical here just for data collection purposes. Plus, we all make bad trading decisions now and then, so let's call it even.
As stated in the title, this is for H1 only. These results may very well not play out for other time frames - who knows, it may not even work on H1 starting this Monday. Forex is an unpredictable place.
I collected data to show efficacy of taking profit at three different levels: -61.8%, -100% and -161.8% fib levels described in the system using the passive trade management method(set it and forget it). I'll have more below about moving up stops and taking off portions of a position.
And now for the fun. Results!
Total Trades: 241
TP at -61.8%: 177 out of 241: 73.44%
TP at -100%: 156 out of 241: 64.73%
TP at -161.8%: 121 out of 241: 50.20%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account):
TP at -61.8%: 5.22%
TP at -100%: 23.55%
TP at -161.8%: 29.14%
As you can see, a higher target ended up with higher profit despite a much lower winrate. This is partially just how things work out with profit targets in general, but there's an additional point to consider in our case: the spread. Since we are trading on a lower timeframe, there is less overall price movement and thus the spread takes up a much larger percentage of the trade than it would if you were trading H4, Daily or Weekly charts. You can see exactly how much it accounts for each trade in my spreadsheet if you're interested. TDA does not have the best spreads, so you could probably improve these results with another broker. EDIT: I grabbed typical spreads from other brokers, and turns out while TDA is pretty competitive on majors, their minors/crosses are awful! IG beats them by 20-40% and Oanda beats them 30-60%! Using IG spreads for calculations increased profits considerably (another 5% on top) and Oanda spreads increased profits massively (another 15%!). Definitely going to be considering another broker than TDA for this strategy. Plus that'll allow me to trade micro-lots, so I can be more granular(and thus accurate) with my position sizing and compounding.
A Note on Spread
As you can see in the data, there were scenarios where the spread was 80% of the overall size of the trade(the size of the confirmation candle that you draw your fibonacci retracements over), which would obviously cut heavily into your profits. Removing any trades where the spread is more than 50% of the trade width improved profits slightly without removing many trades, but this is almost certainly just coincidence on a small sample size. Going below 40% and even down to 30% starts to cut out a lot of trades for the less-common pairs, but doesn't actually change overall profits at all(~1% either way). However, digging all the way down to 25% starts to really make some movement. Profit at the -161.8% TP level jumps up to 37.94% if you filter out anything with a spread that is more than 25% of the trade width! And this even keeps the sample size fairly large at 187 total trades. You can get your profits all the way up to 48.43% at the -161.8% TP level if you filter all the way down to only trades where spread is less than 15% of the trade width, however your sample size gets much smaller at that point(108 trades) so I'm not sure I would trust that as being accurate in the long term. Overall based on this data, I'm going to only take trades where the spread is less than 25% of the trade width. This may bias my trades more towards the majors, which would mean a lot more correlated trades as well(more on correlation below), but I think it is a reasonable precaution regardless.
Time of Day
Time of day had an interesting effect on trades. In a totally predictable fashion, a vast majority of setups occurred during the London and New York sessions: 5am-12pm Eastern. However, there was one outlier where there were many setups on the 11PM bar - and the winrate was about the same as the big hours in the London session. No idea why this hour in particular - anyone have any insight? That's smack in the middle of the Tokyo/Sydney overlap, not at the open or close of either. On many of the hour slices I have a feeling I'm just dealing with small number statistics here since I didn't have a lot of data when breaking it down by individual hours. But here it is anyway - for all TP levels, these three things showed up(all in Eastern time):
7pm-4am: Fewer setups, but winrate high.
5am-6am: Lots of setups, but but winrate low.
12pm-3pm Medium number of setups, but winrate low.
I don't have any reason to think these timeframes would maintain this behavior over the long term. They're almost certainly meaningless. EDIT: When you de-dup highly correlated trades, the number of trades in these timeframes really drops, so from this data there is no reason to think these timeframes would be any different than any others in terms of winrate. That being said, these time frames work out for me pretty well because I typically sleep 12am-7am Eastern time. So I automatically avoid the 5am-6am timeframe, and I'm awake for the majority of this system's setups.
Moving stops up to breakeven
This section goes against everything I know and have ever heard about trade management. Please someone find something wrong with my data. I'd love for someone to check my formulas, but I realize that's a pretty insane time commitment to ask of a bunch of strangers. Anyways. What I found was that for these trades moving stops up...basically at all...actually reduced the overall profitability. One of the data points I collected while charting was where the price retraced back to after hitting a certain milestone. i.e. once the price hit the -61.8% profit level, how far back did it retrace before hitting the -100% profit level(if at all)? And same goes for the -100% profit level - how far back did it retrace before hitting the -161.8% profit level(if at all)? Well, some complex excel formulas later and here's what the results appear to be. Emphasis on appears because I honestly don't believe it. I must have done something wrong here, but I've gone over it a hundred times and I can't find anything out of place.
Moving SL up to 0% when the price hits -61.8%, TP at -100%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 5.36%
Taking half position off at -61.8%, moving SL up to 0%, TP remaining half at -100%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): -1.01% (yes, a net loss)
Now, you might think exactly what I did when looking at these numbers: oof, the spread killed us there right? Because even when you move your SL to 0%, you still end up paying the spread, so it's not truly "breakeven". And because we are trading on a lower timeframe, the spread can be pretty hefty right? Well even when I manually modified the data so that the spread wasn't subtracted(i.e. "Breakeven" was truly +/- 0), things don't look a whole lot better, and still way worse than the passive trade management method of leaving your stops in place and letting it run. And that isn't even a realistic scenario because to adjust out the spread you'd have to move your stoploss inside the candle edge by at least the spread amount, meaning it would almost certainly be triggered more often than in the data I collected(which was purely based on the fib levels and mark price). Regardless, here are the numbers for that scenario:
Moving SL up to 0% when the price hits -61.8%, TP at -100%
Winrate(breakeven doesn't count as a win): 46.4%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 17.97%
Taking half position off at -61.8%, moving SL up to 0%, TP remaining half at -100%
Winrate(breakeven doesn't count as a win): 65.97%
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 11.60%
From a literal standpoint, what I see behind this behavior is that 44 of the 69 breakeven trades(65%!) ended up being profitable to -100% after retracing deeply(but not to the original SL level), which greatly helped offset the purely losing trades better than the partial profit taken at -61.8%. And 36 went all the way back to -161.8% after a deep retracement without hitting the original SL. Anyone have any insight into this? Is this a problem with just not enough data? It seems like enough trades that a pattern should emerge, but again I'm no expert. I also briefly looked at moving stops to other lower levels (78.6%, 61.8%, 50%, 38.2%, 23.6%), but that didn't improve things any. No hard data to share as I only took a quick look - and I still might have done something wrong overall. The data is there to infer other strategies if anyone would like to dig in deep(more explanation on the spreadsheet below). I didn't do other combinations because the formulas got pretty complicated and I had already answered all the questions I was looking to answer.
2-Candle vs Confirmation Candle Stops
Another interesting point is that the original system has the SL level(for stop entries) just at the outer edge of the 2-candle pattern that makes up the system. Out of pure laziness, I set up my stops just based on the confirmation candle. And as it turns out, that is much a much better way to go about it. Of the 60 purely losing trades, only 9 of them(15%) would go on to be winners with stops on the 2-candle formation. Certainly not enough to justify the extra loss and/or reduced profits you are exposing yourself to in every single other trade by setting a wider SL. Oddly, in every single scenario where the wider stop did save the trade, it ended up going all the way to the -161.8% profit level. Still, not nearly worth it.
As I've said many times now, I'm really not qualified to be doing an analysis like this. This section in particular. Looking at shared currency among the pairs traded, 74 of the trades are correlated. Quite a large group, but it makes sense considering the sort of moves we're looking for with this system. This means you are opening yourself up to more risk if you were to trade on every signal since you are technically trading with the same underlying sentiment on each different pair. For example, GBP/USD and AUD/USD moving together almost certainly means it's due to USD moving both pairs, rather than GBP and AUD both moving the same size and direction coincidentally at the same time. So if you were to trade both signals, you would very likely win or lose both trades - meaning you are actually risking double what you'd normally risk(unless you halve both positions which can be a good option, and is discussed in ParallaxFX's posts and in various other places that go over pair correlation. I won't go into detail about those strategies here). Interestingly though, 17 of those apparently correlated trades ended up with different wins/losses. Also, looking only at trades that were correlated, winrate is 83%/70%/55% (for the three TP levels). Does this give some indication that the same signal on multiple pairs means the signal is stronger? That there's some strong underlying sentiment driving it? Or is it just a matter of too small a sample size? The winrate isn't really much higher than the overall winrates, so that makes me doubt it is statistically significant. One more funny tidbit: EUCAD netted the lowest overall winrate: 30% to even the -61.8% TP level on 10 trades. Seems like that is just a coincidence and not enough data, but dang that's a sucky losing streak. EDIT: WOW I spent some time removing correlated trades manually and it changed the results quite a bit. Some thoughts on this below the results. These numbers also include the other "What I will trade" filters. I added a new worksheet to my data to show what I ended up picking.
Total Trades: 75
TP at -61.8%: 84.00%
TP at -100%: 73.33%
TP at -161.8%: 60.00%
Moving SL up to 0% when the price hits -61.8%, TP at -100%: 53.33%
Taking half position off at -61.8%, moving SL up to 0%, TP remaining half at -100%: 53.33% (yes, oddly the exact same winrate. but different trades/profits)
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account):
TP at -61.8%: 18.13%
TP at -100%: 26.20%
TP at -161.8%: 34.01%
Moving SL up to 0% when the price hits -61.8%, TP at -100%: 19.20%
Taking half position off at -61.8%, moving SL up to 0%, TP remaining half at -100%: 17.29%
To do this, I removed correlated trades - typically by choosing those whose spread had a lower % of the trade width since that's objective and something I can see ahead of time. Obviously I'd like to only keep the winning trades, but I won't know that during the trade. This did reduce the overall sample size down to a level that I wouldn't otherwise consider to be big enough, but since the results are generally consistent with the overall dataset, I'm not going to worry about it too much. I may also use more discretionary methods(support/resistance, quality of indecision/confirmation candles, news/sentiment for the pairs involved, etc) to filter out correlated trades in the future. But as I've said before I'm going for a pretty mechanical system. This brought the 3 TP levels and even the breakeven strategies much closer together in overall profit. It muted the profit from the high R:R strategies and boosted the profit from the low R:R strategies. This tells me pair correlation was skewing my data quite a bit, so I'm glad I dug in a little deeper. Fortunately my original conclusion to use the -161.8 TP level with static stops is still the winner by a good bit, so it doesn't end up changing my actions. There were a few times where MANY (6-8) correlated pairs all came up at the same time, so it'd be a crapshoot to an extent. And the data showed this - often then won/lost together, but sometimes they did not. As an arbitrary rule, the more correlations, the more trades I did end up taking(and thus risking). For example if there were 3-5 correlations, I might take the 2 "best" trades given my criteria above. 5+ setups and I might take the best 3 trades, even if the pairs are somewhat correlated. I have no true data to back this up, but to illustrate using one example: if AUD/JPY, AUD/USD, CAD/JPY, USD/CAD all set up at the same time (as they did, along with a few other pairs on 6/19/20 9:00 AM), can you really say that those are all the same underlying movement? There are correlations between the different correlations, and trying to filter for that seems rough. Although maybe this is a known thing, I'm still pretty green to Forex - someone please enlighten me if so! I might have to look into this more statistically, but it would be pretty complex to analyze quantitatively, so for now I'm going with my gut and just taking a few of the "best" trades out of the handful. Overall, I'm really glad I went further on this. The boosting of the B/E strategies makes me trust my calculations on those more since they aren't so far from the passive management like they were with the raw data, and that really had me wondering what I did wrong.
What I will trade
Putting all this together, I am going to attempt to trade the following(demo for a bit to make sure I have the hang of it, then for keeps):
"System Details" I described above.
TP at -161.8%
Static SL at opposite side of confirmation candle - I won't move stops up to breakeven.
Trade only 7am-11am and 4pm-11pm signals.
Nothing where spread is more than 25% of trade width.
Looking at the data for these rules, test results are:
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 47.43%
I'll be sure to let everyone know how it goes!
Other Technical Details
ATR is only slightly elevated in this date range from historical levels, so this should fairly closely represent reality even after the COVID volatility leaves the scalpers sad and alone.
The sample size is much too small for anything really meaningful when you slice by hour or pair. I wasn't particularly looking to test a specific pair here - just the system overall as if you were going to trade it on all pairs with a reasonable spread.
Here's the spreadsheet for anyone that'd like it. (EDIT: Updated some of the setups from the last few days that have fully played out now. I also noticed a few typos, but nothing major that would change the overall outcomes. Regardless, I am currently reviewing every trade to ensure they are accurate.UPDATE: Finally all done. Very few corrections, no change to results.) I have some explanatory notes below to help everyone else understand the spiraled labyrinth of a mind that put the spreadsheet together.
I'm on the East Coast in the US, so the timestamps are Eastern time.
Time stamp is from the confirmation candle, not the indecision candle. So 7am would mean the indecision candle was 6:00-6:59 and the confirmation candle is 7:00-7:59 and you'd put in your order at 8:00.
I found a couple AM/PM typos as I was reviewing the data, so let me know if a trade doesn't make sense and I'll correct it.
Insanely detailed spreadsheet notes
For you real nerds out there. Here's an explanation of what each column means:
Pair - duh
Date/Time - Eastern time, confirmation candle as stated above
Win to -61.8%? - whether the trade made it to the -61.8% TP level before it hit the original SL.
Win to -100%? - whether the trade made it to the -100% TP level before it hit the original SL.
Win to -161.8%? - whether the trade made it to the -161.8% TP level before it hit the original SL.
Retracement level between -61.8% and -100% - how deep the price retraced after hitting -61.8%, but before hitting -100%. Be careful to look for the negative signs, it's easy to mix them up. Using the fib% levels defined in ParallaxFX's original thread. A plain hyphen "-" means it did not retrace, but rather went straight through -61.8% to -100%. Positive 100 means it hit the original SL.
Retracement level between -100% and -161.8% - how deep the price retraced after hitting -100%, but before hitting -161.8%. Be careful to look for the negative signs, it's easy to mix them up. Using the fib% levels defined in ParallaxFX's original thread. A plain hyphen "-" means it did not retrace, but rather went straight through -100% to -161.8%. Positive 100 means it hit the original SL.
Trade Width(Pips) - the size of the confirmation candle, and thus the "width" of your trade on which to determine position size, draw fib levels, etc.
Loser saved by 2 candle stop? - for all losing trades, whether or not the 2-candle stop loss would have saved the trade and how far it ended up getting if so. "No" means it didn't save it, N/A means it wasn't a losing trade so it's not relevant.
Spread(ThinkorSwim) - these are typical spreads for these pairs on ToS.
Spread % of Width - How big is the spread compared to the trade width? Not used in any calculations, but interesting nonetheless.
True Risk(Trade Width + Spread) - I set my SL at the opposite side of the confirmation candle knowing that I'm actually exposing myself to slightly more risk because of the spread(stop order = market order when submitted, so you pay the spread). So this tells you how many pips you are actually risking despite the Trade Width. I prefer this over setting the stop inside from the edge of the candle because some pairs have a wide spread that would mess with the system overall. But also many, many of these trades retraced very nearly to the edge of the confirmation candle, before ending up nicely profitable. If you keep your risk per trade at 1%, you're talking a true risk of, at most, 1.25% (in worst-case scenarios with the spread being 25% of the trade width as I am going with above).
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread TP -61.8% - not going to go into huge detail, see the spreadsheet for calculations if you want. But, in a nutshell, if the trade was a win to 61.8%, it returns a positive # based on 61.8% of the trade width, minus the spread. Otherwise, it returns the True Risk as a negative. Both normalized to the 1% risk you started with.
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread TP -100% - same as the last, but 100% of Trade Width.
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread TP -161.8% - same as the last, but 161.8% of Trade Width.
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread TP -100%, and move SL to breakeven at 61.8% - uses the retracement level columns to calculate profit/loss the same as the last few columns, but assuming you moved SL to 0% fib level after price hit -61.8%. Then full TP at 100%.
Win or Loss in %(1% risk) including spread take off half of position at -61.8%, move SL to breakeven, TP 100% - uses the retracement level columns to calculate profit/loss the same as the last few columns, but assuming you took of half the position and moved SL to 0% fib level after price hit -61.8%. Then TP the remaining half at 100%.
Overall Growth(-161.8% TP, 1% Risk) - pretty straightforward. Assuming you risked 1% on each trade, what the overall growth level would be chronologically(spreadsheet is sorted by date).
Based on the reasonable rules I discovered in this backtest:
Date range: 6/11-7/3
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 47.43%
Demo Trading Results
Since this post, I started demo trading this system assuming a 5k capital base and risking ~1% per trade. I've added the details to my spreadsheet for anyone interested. The results are pretty similar to the backtest when you consider real-life conditions/timing are a bit different. I missed some trades due to life(work, out of the house, etc), so that brought my total # of trades and thus overall profit down, but the winrate is nearly identical. I also closed a few trades early due to various reasons(not liking the price action, seeing support/resistance emerge, etc). A quick note is that TD's paper trade system fills at the mid price for both stop and limit orders, so I had to subtract the spread from the raw trade values to get the true profit/loss amount for each trade. I'm heading out of town next week, then after that it'll be time to take this sucker live!
Date range: 7/9-7/30
Adjusted Proft % (takes spread into account): 20.73%
Starting Balance: $5,000
Ending Balance: $6,036.51
Live Trading Results
I started live-trading this system on 8/10, and almost immediately had a string of losses much longer than either my backtest or demo period. Murphy's law huh? Anyways, that has me spooked so I'm doing a longer backtest before I start risking more real money. It's going to take me a little while due to the volume of trades, but I'll likely make a new post once I feel comfortable with that and start live trading again.
CMV: Regarding new economic plan that would create an open system of accountability and without increasing the debt.
Currently there are 250,000 people in Las Vegas, NV that will not be able to pay their rent for September. Let's say a total of $125,000 million dollars would take care of their rent situation. I came up with that number by dividing $125,000 by $500. I know rents are higher. This is for illustrative purposes. This is a very difficult time for just about everyone at the moment. We are looking for answers that we just don’t have. Now is the time to come together as a unit and take part in something bigger than it’s individual parts. I am talking about a new way of financial thinking that creates a win, win, win, situation. Renters make up forty percent of households and thirty eight percent of renters are estimated to be unemployed right now. Eviction notices could be mailed as soon as next month. This is a crisis that will affect the entire country. But there is something that we can do about it, but it takes all of our voices in unity to make it happen. This is a collective action that can be implemented immediately. Now is the time to go beyond thinking out of the box and thinking out of our universe. Big banks and financial institutions were responsible for the 2007 housing collapse which devastated the entire world economy. In 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was signed into law, creating a $700 billion program to purchase devalued assets from banks. This was called the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Later, President Obama would direct $75 billion in funds from TARP to help reduce interest payments for homeowners. That means homeowners received around 10% of the direct relief that banks and corporations did, according to Business Insider. It’s now time for the financial institutions to do their share and make up for the last financial debacle. The financial markets are experiencing all time highs and billionaires got $637 billion dollars richer in the last few months. Somethings definitely out of whack here and I will show you how we fix this. I said we, meaning the millions of people around the world with one voice helping to implement The One Cent More Plan. For any financial movement to be sustainable it must be transparent for all to see where the money is being used and not exploited by a few. That’s why no one organization is responsible for the money involved and each transaction is in the block-chain ledger for all to see at anytime. This is how it works for renters, landlords and the banks. For the purpose of this example let’s use Cindy as a renter who lives in Las Vegas and lost her job and can’t pay next months rent. She has notified her landlord and he is trying to be as courteous as possible, but he also has a mortgage to pay on his apartment building which has ten units. Some of the other tenants have lost their jobs as well. As you can see this is a common occurrence in Las Vegas at the moment. This is where the bank steps in as the lovable George Bailey types which they will become. I know what you are thinking. Their more like Mr. Potter than George in it’s a Wonderful Life. But you will soon see that it’s in their best interest to be more like George in the long run. If you haven’t seen the movie, I suggest you do. It’s one of my favorites. I will start with the New York Stock Exchange. The average daily volume for the last three months was 1,123,989,426 shares which equates to a staggering 22,479,788,520 shares per month. What if for each share an additional fee of one cent were added. This would result in $11,239,894.26 dollars per day going into the The One Cent More Plan Fund. You know at the end of each day the total amount that the fund should have simply by looking at the end of day total volume for the market. Multiply that by the number of trading days in the month and it equals 224,797,885.20 dollars. This is just one market. Now let’s say Cindy is a beneficiary of The One Cent More Plan Fund which is setup for the sole purpose of assisting with rent for those who can’t pay. Her rent was 750 dollars she would receive 500 dollars for rent and nothing out of her pocket. But Cindy wouldn’t get a direct payment. She would receive a receipt contract from her bank with a block-chain transaction number which she can look up on the internet to verify that it had been paid. Her landlord would also receive from his bank a receipt contract only because he owes the bank his mortgage payment. If he had no mortgage the payment would go directly to him. His payment would also be on the block-chain. So, Cindy’s rent is paid for the month of September. Her landlord is happy although he doesn’t get his normal amount of 750 dollars, it’s still better than having to go through the hassle of evicting a good tenant and ending up with no rent at all!! And the landlords bank is happy that the mortgage is being paid. Here is the Ethereum Blockchain Ledger So how much would it cost to do the same for the other people who can’t pay their rent. This is just one example with one market. As you can see there are no real losers in this equation. A one cent transaction fee on every stock sold is not a lot to fight over. Once Cindy finds a job she would not receive the entire $500 for rent only $300. The remaining $200 would stay in the fund to sustain it. And by the way this is a temporary transaction fee until more people get back to work and the economy starts to recover. It is estimated that $21 trillion dollars is hidden in offshore accounts by the wealthy. Companies in the United States have an estimated $2.1 trillion. If companies just brought back that money and donated the interest alone from it this would have a huge impact on the economy and not increase the national debt at all! When you don’t have customers with money to buy your product it will really begin to feel like 1929 again in a hurry. This could snowball quickly. We don’t have time for negotiations over a stimulus package. Big banks and corporations could really turn their image around and be the true heroes if they wanted to be. The money is there folks we just have to make them accountable with our voices. We have seen how social change can happen all around the world. Let’s not miss this opportunity today right now. I haven’t even spoken about the largest market in the world and that is Forex. If we just took a small portion each day from the six trillion that is traded each day it would help us stop evictions around the world and give people hope. Banks are already using block-chain technology as we speak. This doesn’t require building brand new infrastructure. As I just showed you this can be done with existing bank accounts. Payments can be made in seconds. I can send my sister money through Zelle in minutes. Their should be no lag time as to when payments can be made. So who is going to foot the bill for making this happen. The banks of course and without any transaction fee whatsoever. I look forward to all your comments and suggestions with an open mind. Thanks,, chronus80
Part IV - Entry Options Hey everyone, you can find Part III of this series here: https://www.reddit.com/Forex/comments/h97sv7/part_iii_my_10_minutesday_trading_strategy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Welcome to Part IV where I will be discussing various entry options. I’ve said this before, but it is worth repeating here as well: identifying a technical setup is one thing. Making money off of that setup is a whole other thing. This is precisely why most signal services fail. While the quality of the signal provider is one thing to consider, the other thing to take into account is that it is very difficult to blindly trade like somebody else - even if they give you their exact entry and exit points. This is why I really want to focus on figuring out how to make MY strategy work for YOU. I will share with you a few different options for entries based on the strategy’s prototypical setup. But it is 100% on you to figure out what suits your trading style, personality, and lifestyle the best. Part V will cover exit options. Part VI will cover risk allocation & management Let’s get on with it. Basic Notes On Entries: We are assuming that all entries are referring to a setup that forms at 5pm EST. I am using 5pm EST because that is when the most trading opportunities have the potential of occurring based on this strategy. It is also when you will see the spreads widen out as the NY Session comes to a close. Therefore, you will not want to take a market order right at 5pm EST. Usually the spreads start narrowing again by 6pm EST.
Limit order (we will use fibonacci retracements to figure out where to place our limit entry orders)
Stop order (we can set a stop order beyond the setup candle’s high/low. I personally do not recommend this particular method, but I am including it here because one trader that uses this strategy has had success with it and prefers it)
The big difference between the stop order and the other entry types is pretty simple. If you are using a stop order to get into the trade, you will not have as good a risk to reward ratio as a trader that used a limit order to get into the trade. The advantage to using a stop order is that there will be some trades where you do not enter the trade because price never went beyond the high/low point of the setup candle. This means you avoid taking a loss on those trades whereas a trader who used a limit or market order to get into the trade would take a loss. The other advantage is that there may be trade setups where the limit orders don’t get filled but the stop order will. I have NOT statistically tested stop orders vs the other order types. If you want to know what works best for you, it is on you to do the testing. Okay let’s take a deeper look now into the different ways we can enter:
Limit order: We will draw our fibonacci retracement levels over the setup candle (I have updated the Fibonacci levels I use in Part III. Replaced the old screenshot with the new one with up-to-date levels). We will then look to place our limit orders just below (IF a short trade setup) / above (IF a long trade setup) the 23.6% and 38.2% Retracement levels. When I say just below or above, I am referring to the spread amount at minimum. However more above/below you want to go is up to you and your testing. Sometimes your limit orders get filled rather quickly. Sometimes they take longer (hours longer). I cancel unfilled Retracement orders if price has run to a fiboancci extension level without filling me on the trade. The obvious benefit to limit orders is that you can set your orders and then simply walk away from the screens. IF the setup candle closes past its 23.6% Retracement level then you will only take ONE limit order off the 38.2%.
Market order: Since we will not be taking a market order trade right at 5pm EST, this leaves us with options. Because a market order does not guarantee us a fill price, we do have some flexibility vs taking strict limit orders. The risk you run with using limit orders is that if your price is not met, you do not get filled. So for example, let’s say it is 6pm EST and the spreads begin to narrow once more and price just so happens to trade right around the 23.6% Fibonacci Retracement area. This is a great opportunity to simply take a market order and get into the trade. Let’s say, however, that price never retraced back into the setup candle and it looks like the trade may simply run to its profit target. What do you do? Well, you can still take a market order to get into the trade… OR you can wait to see if price will retrace back into the candle later on… OR you can write the trade off because price has already run to a fibonacci extension level. The bottom line is that if you have flexibility and you have options. **NOTE: On setups that occur outside the 5pm hour, you can obviously take market orders as soon as the setup bar closes without worrying about unusual spreads)**
Stop order: Stop orders are similar to limit orders in that you can set the orders and then walk away from the screens. If you are using stop orders you will not split your order into several parts. You will simply take one order. You will set the stop order just beyond the high/low of the setup candle.
My preferred method of entry: I like to combine the market and limit entry options myself. Again - assuming a 5pm EST setup here is what I do:
Set limit orders at 38.2 and 61.8% Retracement levels and walk away. If I get a notification that my 23.6% order got triggered, I don’t have to come back to my screens. If I don’t get a notification that my 23.6% order got triggered by 6pm EST, I’ll come back to the trade setup and execute a market order and then delete the 23.6% order. I leave the 38.2% limit order as is. Hopefully it triggers, but if it doesn’t then at least I have half my position on. IF it is a situation where the setup candle closes past its 23.6% Retracement then I will only take 1 order, whether it is the market or the limit.
15 • How to Set up a Forex Account 2. Next, click the “Trading Panel” button near the bottom of the screen. You’ll then be presented with the option to connect your broker. 3. For the purposes of this report, we’ll use Oanda to demonstrate connecting a broker – just as we did in your special report on opening a forex account. If you've started trading in the forex markets, you'll need to choose what type of account is best-suited to your skill, knowledge, and experience. In the past, when opening a forex trading account, you’d also have to choose whether you wanted to open a “standard” account, a “mini” account, or a “micro” account. Now, that isn’t much of a problem since most brokers allow you to trade custom lots. This is great for newbie and inexperienced traders who only have a small account of capital. This provides you great flexibility ... Creating a Metatrader 4 Account. When you start the application a small window will pop up in the middle of the platform. This is the server window. You will choose among servers for real money and demo money trading. In order to create an account for real trading, you should choose the real account server. The demo money server is for Metatrader demo accounts, where your orders do not go out ... Hey traders, welcome to Video 3 of the Forex Beginners Course. This is Cory Mitchell. In this video we are looking at why you should set up a demo account and how to do it brought to you by Investoo.com. So, you should never start trading with real money right away. Always start trading with a demo account. This way you know if what you’re doing is working or not. You can apply strategies to ... Forex Trading and Risk . During the final steps of opening your account, you will see risk disclosures. Please take these seriously. Forex is a difficult business for beginners. It tends to eat them for dinner if they aren't careful. There are more losers than winners on average. The broker is required to remind you of the forex risks. When you set up your accounts forex account, it is essential for the trader to have a firm idea about his broker. If the broker has been well proven for its reliability, you should not need to worry about the broker’s reliability. If the broker has experienced a lot of traders, this indicates that the broker is reliable. For forex traders, it is important to know what is the minimum starting ...
How To Open a Forex Broker Trading Account Getting ...
How To Open a Forex Broker Trading Account and help guide you on connecting it on to your MetaTrader 4 app. Broker Sign Up Link: https://www.hugosway.com/?cmp=3... Social 🗣 Follow - http://facebook.com/newwealthmovement Instagram - @dwayne_chappell Forex 📈📉 👉Training, A.I Trading Software & Telegram🤖- http ... Be sure to SUBSCRIBE!!! •$297 Forex Course 👇 https://www.fx-accelerator.com/fxfunnel •JOIN OUR 7-DAY FREE GROUP CHAT: https://www.fx-accelerator.com/master..... Have you ever wondered how to grow a SMALL forex trading account? Here's the SECRET SAUCE! FACTS: You can be financially successful in 5 years or LESS with t...