Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

cornixforex

Why Trader Should Love Correct Losing Trades

Recommended Posts

First of all, what are "correct" losses vs. "incorrect" losses? Correct losses are your safety net. They are the result of your hard work of back testing and forward testing and constitute the optimal way to control risk for an outright forex trader.

 

You know that you only want to risk a certain maximum amount of pips and you control that by placing stop-loss upon entering the trade. This is essential part of almost any consistently profitable trading system. And when such "good" loss occurs, you know that it is not a problem, just the opposite, it is the part of normal trading routine. And you should like the fact that everything is going right, as planned.

 

Incorrect losses, on the other side are those which are not planned or even worse, are caused by impulsive, emotional actions of a trader.

 

Unplanned losses are pretty hard to control and you must be ready to the fact that some day they may happen. Sudden market spikes, caused by unexpected news, central bank interventions etc. All of them may cause slippage through your stop-loss order and bigger loss as a result. This is just one of many outright trading risks, we must simply accept this truth of reality. But this fact reinforces the need for a stop-loss. Because slippage through it is one thing, and totally uncontrolled move against you is the other, much more ugly.

 

Impulsive, caused by emotions losses though, are the worst kind of all trader's losses possible and must be eliminated, because it's them which lead to dramatic hits or in the best case, to an absense of ability to trade profitable on a consistent basis.

 

The examples of such losses are: market is moving against you, but you move your stop-loss "just a bit" further from initial amount, because you hope (you may think you know, but you never know anything for sure about the market) that price will come back and make you money. Or even worse, you average down in an unplanned way (planned average down can be a legit trading or investment strategy), also in hope it will eventually come back.

 

Result of such "innovations" is always the same: you end up losing much more than you planned or even turn profitable trading method into a losing one.

 

So it's always good to remember: our profitable trading strategies are product of serious efforts, our home work and practical experience of interaction with the market. Our stop-loss amount is such for a reason. So we should never change something in our strategy only cause it feels so on a single trade. If we see effectiveness of a method drops over time, we should stop trading it live and on full size, do some home work and find out the reasons for that. If objective reasons do exist (which is not always the case), then we should develop some modifications which would adjust our method in the correct way. And then we execute the modified method with the same discipline as we did before.

 

But such decisions must always come from intellect, not from emotional impulses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect losses occur when you either should not have gotten into the trade, you stayed in longer than you should have, or you got out earlier than you should have.

 

It is exactly the same for wins; however, if you can trade, then you can certainly ride an incorrect win to a really nice win and overcome all your incorrect losses. The rigidity that comes with logic really doesn't belong in the market. Use the other side of your head.

 

Keep losses small and ride a winner until it is drained.

 

What happens after you get in is far more important than what happened before you got in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, incorrect wins and losses should both be eliminated from the trading, because they are result of impulsive actions (aka gambling) as opposed to rule based systematic trading.

 

If you treat it as a serious business, you should not act impulsively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, incorrect wins and losses should both be eliminated from the trading, because they are result of impulsive actions (aka gambling) as opposed to rule based systematic trading.

 

If you treat it as a serious business, you should not act impulsively.

 

Ideally, yes they should be eliminated. However, most situations are not ideal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ideally, yes they should be eliminated. However, most situations are not ideal.

 

Not ideal, but following your own rules is not necessarily an ideal situation, rather usual common sense.

 

And all trades executed according to rules are "good" in my opinion, doesn't matter winners or losers.

 

Assuming of course, that rules are part of the system proven to have an edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not ideal, but following your own rules is not necessarily an ideal situation, rather usual common sense.

 

And all trades executed according to rules are "good" in my opinion, doesn't matter winners or losers.

 

Assuming of course, that rules are part of the system proven to have an edge.

 

Rules are important but mistakes are to be expected and you can still make money even though you make mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rules are important but mistakes are to be expected and you can still make money even though you make mistakes.

 

Well, there are mistakes and there are mistakes. :)

 

Taking profits on a trade a bit too soon is a mistake, but it will not wreck trader's account all at once.

 

Not placing a protective stop on the other side is a mistake, which should never be committed no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.