Good morning folks! I hope you’re well and had a good night sleep!
My desk is really creaking this morning so I’m starting to get rather tilted I have to admit ARGGGG
We saw USOIL provide us with a valid entry at the daily close, so I put my alarm on at midnight (giving it one hour to settle the spread) and woke up to execute the trade.
However, I came to realize I had never before executed an oil trade on this account with the IC platform I’m using, I believe all my trades on it were back on my previous account or when I was with FXCM
This led to some hesitation since I know that commodities can be sized differently than traditional FX pairs, so I wanted to take a 25% R position instead of taking my usual 100%R to make sure the sizing was correct and to feel a lot safer about the overall position.
That being said, I came to realize that (after going through 4 different oils) that XTI so the equivalent to USOIL on tradingview (CFDs on WTI Crude oil) required a 0.5 lot sizing.
Which was more than the 25% of my usual R told me to use.
Therefore instead of executing the trade live directly, I wanted to take the position on a demo account with the full R to make sure that the position (i.e. P&L) was behaving correctly.
Sadly there was very little volume at that time of the night so it was extremely hard to be sure it was the correct position size.
Instead of taking the risk of waking up with a position 5 times bigger than my usual R I decided to leave my demo trade on and decide further actions once price moved a bit more and I could observe the impact it had on the fake trade.
Turns out, I had used the correct position size so I could’ve executed live.
That being said, I’m quite glad I didn’t.
I prefer to be safe than greedy.
All that to say, I currently have two orders on USOIL
One is at the original entry price, the second entry is for a potential scale in on the hourly chart
Let’s see what happens
NOTE: As I was writing the rest of this blog post I came to realize that on tradingview my first order would’ve been triggered but not on my broker so the data feeds aren’t exactly the same which makes me uneasy.
I’ve decided to cancel my two orders.
I dislike anything that makes me hesitate but it appears I was wrong and XTI isn’t the perfect representation of USOIL.
While I’ve mentioned a couple of times I am currently developing a new entry method I am now quite happy with my dataset to be executing (small) positions with it to forward test the results.
The backtest looks promising, and I’ve collected quite a lot of data which makes me comfortable executing this position
The fact that it is underwater, is I have to say no surprise, I believe I’ll be able to fine-tune my entries further along
Some of you may be wondering why I didn’t execute Aussie Dollar last night, the reason is simply because I’ve noticed the strike rate and average return of trades to drastically drop once we’ve seen more than 2 sideways candle on the 4hour
I am no longer looking for an entry here but figured it was worth mentioning
In a similar fashion, Euro Dollar also provided an entry last night, however it was definitely too low for my liking hence I didn’t execute it, I am no longer watching this pair
Waiting for a potential double top
Waiting for a double top
A few more pairs shall be on my watchlist tomorrow, their zones are currently being validated.
Take care folks
The TLDR of today’s post was:
If unsure, I prefer to stay out of the market.
Rule number one is to protect capital from undue risk
Rule number two is to never forget rule number oneMax, giving you a better quote than Warren Buffet
One Reply to “Tuesday 26th of April”
Here’s an easter egg
If you noticed I use 2 indicators in my new strategy, one to highlight areas, which I’ll keep private, and one that I’ve found, I didn’t change anything except 1 number so figured I’d share it here
I personally keep n = 3 (It used to be 2 as a defval) but I believe 3 is better
Enjoy playing around with it
indicator(“Williams Fractals”, shorttitle=”MS”, format=format.price, precision=0, overlay=true)
// Define “n” as the number of periods and keep a minimum value of 2 for error handling.
n = input.int(title=”Periods”, defval=3, minval=2)
bool upflagDownFrontier = true
bool upflagUpFrontier0 = true
bool upflagUpFrontier1 = true
bool upflagUpFrontier2 = true
bool upflagUpFrontier3 = true
bool upflagUpFrontier4 = true
for i = 1 to n
upflagDownFrontier := upflagDownFrontier and (high[n-i] < high[n])
upflagUpFrontier0 := upflagUpFrontier0 and (high[n+i] < high[n])
upflagUpFrontier1 := upflagUpFrontier1 and (high[n+1] <= high[n] and high[n+i + 1] < high[n])
upflagUpFrontier2 := upflagUpFrontier2 and (high[n+1] <= high[n] and high[n+2] <= high[n] and high[n+i + 2] < high[n])
upflagUpFrontier3 := upflagUpFrontier3 and (high[n+1] <= high[n] and high[n+2] <= high[n] and high[n+3] <= high[n] and high[n+i + 3] < high[n])
upflagUpFrontier4 := upflagUpFrontier4 and (high[n+1] <= high[n] and high[n+2] <= high[n] and high[n+3] <= high[n] and high[n+4] <= high[n] and high[n+i + 4] low[n])
downflagUpFrontier0 := downflagUpFrontier0 and (low[n+i] > low[n])
downflagUpFrontier1 := downflagUpFrontier1 and (low[n+1] >= low[n] and low[n+i + 1] > low[n])
downflagUpFrontier2 := downflagUpFrontier2 and (low[n+1] >= low[n] and low[n+2] >= low[n] and low[n+i + 2] > low[n])
downflagUpFrontier3 := downflagUpFrontier3 and (low[n+1] >= low[n] and low[n+2] >= low[n] and low[n+3] >= low[n] and low[n+i + 3] > low[n])
downflagUpFrontier4 := downflagUpFrontier4 and (low[n+1] >= low[n] and low[n+2] >= low[n] and low[n+3] >= low[n] and low[n+4] >= low[n] and low[n+i + 4] > low[n])
flagDownFrontier = downflagUpFrontier0 or downflagUpFrontier1 or downflagUpFrontier2 or downflagUpFrontier3 or downflagUpFrontier4
downFractal = (downflagDownFrontier and flagDownFrontier)
plotshape(downFractal, style=shape.triangledown, location=location.belowbar, offset=-n, color=#F44336, size = size.tiny)
plotshape(upFractal, style=shape.triangleup, location=location.abovebar, offset=-n, color=#009688, size = size.tiny)