Trading without stop-losses

Mr JI see what you're saying and I don't doubt it works for you.

At the moment for me it is too tough. I could not stand hug profits or losses: I'd concentrate on these.

I am conscious I have so much to learn, but I noticed I readily over-trade and make mistakes (that the majority of these avoidable, if not driven by greed) if I am too exposed; besides that I am not that convinced to manage risk, so far.

Edit: this is in reply to actarus's confusion on several posts back to my question...

to rephrase, if you don't have enough money to open 1 lot, but have enough to open 0.5, or 0.1, or 0.04, or even 0.06 etc ). . You can open SOME form of position. So, bearing this in your mind, how can you get yourself to a point where you are not able to open some further positions than what is already open due to not enough available margin left anymore and yet be able to not lose any money.

Truth be told you will find so many combinations of ways to reach there, however, the methodology behind it is the same for all. Some mixes are more favourable than others.

This may be basic things, or maybe you hadn't ever thought about this type of setup before. I do not understand. Have a think and also a play and see whether anything gels.

:

---

Actually I attempted this type of trading once way back when I was a newcomer. I used 400:1 leverage and 500 dollars in my account. I could trade 9 lots. In the event the trade went against me I margined out @ 50 bucks. In the event the trade went for me I made a killing. The problem was that I had been a trader at there. Wonder if I tried it I could make it work. Hmmmmmmmm.... Perhaps we should start a thread with that one. 50 dollar losses versus 400 dollar profit on a 50 pips move.... Nice risk to reward ratio....

---

Heh I believe most of us have. It's necessary to do it at least once. But out of this I infer that you do exactly the reverse and I am almost sure I know what you're currently doing. Got ta have a larger stick always.

:

---

heh I believe we all have. It is vital to do it at least once. But from that I infer that you do exactly the opposite and I'm almost certain I know what you're currently doing. Gotta have a bigger stick consistently.

---

Yes constantly have enough funds to input some type of trade and enough room to manuever no matter what occurs. I can trade in a comfortable fashion which is the part of trading. Once you think there's this gun to your head, you dont trade. You think better when have options. I must trade this way, it is how I am made.

:

---

Yes always have sufficient funds to enter some kind of trade and sufficient room to manuever no matter what occurs. I will always exchange in a manner which is the most significant part of trading. You dont trade well when you think there is this gun to your head. You think better when have choices. I need to trade this way, it is how I am made.

---

A large'edge' in trading is capital... or at a minimum, available margin. Funds is nothing if there is not the free margin to match.

:

---

I simplified. Just how much I'd risk on succeeding coinflips would depend on how many are being offered, and what kind of capital I have. If I was only offered one coinflip, I would opt for 50%. If it had been until one facet busts on offer, I would be more conservative.



Of course 10 losses in a row is possible, but theoretically everyone can have a series of losses to go bust. 10 wins are equally likely, which might some thing along the lines of 10 million for every $1 of capital. In those 10 flips and 100k, we are as likely to become the richest individual in...

---

mr j, the issue with all the discussion over the www concerning trading probabilities and 10 wins is probably and 10 losses probably etc and so on, is that a win or a loss is merely a win or a loss once the place is closed. Within that is the fact that if a person has 10 losses, or 100 losses, might not have had those losses except for the stoploss being triggered.

Once a transaction is opened there is one reality and one fact just.... A position's point. Once a stoploss is released there are two facts that are the starting point of a position and also the point where the transaction is a capital loss.

As normal the discussion is about context and perspective, and I'm sure you already know and know what I have mentioned, so my remarks are purely an addition to what you've already said to provide a more complete picture on the topic.

To become successful you need at least one edge.

1st: Drop this stupid risk/reward stuff. It is pretty useless.
2nd: Use low leverage (and no, 10:1 isn't low. Use 1:1 or even below)
3rd: Don't use tight stops ever (the tighter the stops that you need more precise entries that's quite tough to reach due to the high sound in the lower timeframes)
4th: Entries are rather unimportant, the departure is where the cash is made. Funny enough, most systems here caution about the entrance.
5th: Scale out and in. Using one entrance with one stop and a single goal? Should you believe why entering a transaction with a single 16, that entries can't be optimal? I enter a little one and put in to this position.

I couldnt agree more

:

---

To achieve success you need a minumum of one edge.

1st: Reduce this dumb risk/reward stuff. It's fairly useless.
2nd: Utilize low leverage (and no, 10:1 isn't low. Use 1:1 or even under )
3rd: Do not use tight stops ever (the tighter the stops that you need more exact entrances that's extremely hard to reach because of the high sound in the reduced timeframes)
4th: Entries are rather unimportant, the exit is where the money is created. Funny enough, the entry is here cared about by many systems.
5th: Scale out and in. Using one entry with a single target and one stop? ...

---

:

---

To become successful you need a minumum of one edge.

1st: Reduce this dumb risk/reward stuff. It is fairly useless.
2nd: Utilize low leverage (and no, 10:1 is not low. Use 1:1 or even under )
3rd: Do not use tight stops (the tighter the stops you need more precise entrances that's quite tough to reach due to the high noise in the lower timeframes)
4th: Entries are somewhat unimportant, the departure is where the cash is made. Funny enough, the entry is here cared about by many systems.
5th: Scale in and out. Simply using one entry with one target and one stop? ...

---

amen

:

---

I will always trade in a comfortable fashion that I is the most significant element of trading.

---

Exactly what I meant. This is significant to me. In fact on the demo account I'm simulating my'moves', I get nervous if large places open or if I am prepared to suffer losses. That's me, of course; nevertheless it is and I must live with that and also consider that.

:

---

to rephrase, if you do not have sufficient money to start 1 lot, but have enough to start 0.5, or 0.1, or 0.04, or 0.06 etc ). . You have the ability to start SOME form of position.

---

I see what you're saying; however many brokers understand a different world. This might be a good reason to start a rather small account with Oanda: it is the broker, which I'm conscious of. As for Dukascopy, the tradable lot is really a micro-lot.

Xaron, thank you very much for your precious advices. I am trying to digest the info and, a great deal more difficult, to be disciplined enough not to violate (ever) those principles.

For those others, I understand there are many ways to skin a cat, however simply other ways aren't for me; in general I'm not willing to even theoretically consider the prospect of a huge loss with just one move.

Thanks all for the legitimate opinions: many believes to consider.