In our next article we show you how you can create as many guaranteed Forex trades in a row as you want
METHOD
If you want to 100% guarantee that your next trade is successful you merely need to enter a buy in one account and a sell with the same size stop and target in the other at the same time – one of them will be successful.
If you want to 100% guarantee that your next 2 trades in a row are successful you merely have to enter 2 buys and 2 sells in 4 accounts. One of the 2 buys or the 2 sells will be successful. You then take the successful trades and do the same as in one above.
If you want to 100% guarantee that your next 3 trades in a row are successful you merely have to enter 4 buys and 4 sells in 8 accounts. The 4 buys or the 4 sells will be successful. You then take the successful trades and do the same as in two above.
And so on………..
2 to the power of the number of successful trades you want is how many accounts you need to open. So if you want 4 successful trades in a row you merely open 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16 accounts and follow the process above.
That is the way you create as many successful trades in a row as you wish. So creating successful trades in a row is easy and requires no trading skill.
By the way you don’t need to do this using separate trading accounts – it can be done in one trading account
THE REAL CHALLENGE
What requires trading skill is to make sure you make the maximum from your winners and that they are bigger than the amount you are risking as Sarah did.
You then add you losses up and the amount of your winners and you should have a profit.
SARAH’S RESULT
In Sarah’s case she started with 64 accounts and risked $ 3 426 in each. She lost $ 3 426 x 63 = $215 838 but the winner more than made up for it a gain of $ 1 002 279. A net gain of $ 786 441 – Good money in anybody’s books. We only say her winning account – not the 63 losers.
START VERY SMALL
It is best to do this with small amounts to start with. Sarah’s level of trading is very difficult to achieve as you need to use a broker with extremely high liquidity to avoid slippage or poor fills. So ignore the extreme lot sizing in Sarah’s account (there are ways around that problem) and look at the trading principles involved.
THE REAL SECRET
Her secret was to produce returns higher than she risked – this method will not be disclosed in this series but we are happy to enter into discussions and debates about how this could be achieved. If it is discovered as result of questions and discussions then that would be better.
Watch the next articles for more information.
It doesn’t look like it. No on is contributing anymore.
Hi Again
is this thread still running
Also
Trade 1, from the open, the waves went +8.6, -49.4, +18.1 pips
Trade 2, +8.57, -25.5, +58.8, -52.3, +56.8 pips etc
If you look at the EURJPY chart for the period 17/7/14 to 25/7/14. According to my chart, the lowest point was 136.367 and the highest point was 137.420. That’s 105.3 pips.
Yes that is exactly what I was thinking. Buy 8.57 lots and Sell 13.1 lots. But that is not 100% guarantee to win.
You buy 8.56 lots and sell 13.1 lots at the same time.
If price goes down you would make (8.56 x -40 x 10) + (13.1 x 40 x 10) = $1816.
If price goes up you would make (8.56 x 40 x 10) + (13.1 x -40 x 10) = -$1816.
But this does not guarantee a winning trade. It’s 50/50.
To be more precise:
Will this increase the balance of the account by more than 100%?
Later
Concerning Sarah’s method, here is something to think about:
Let us assume I start a trade risking the whole account using 100 percent of the initial margin (SL = TP). This is possible by checking Margin Requirements with the broker and adjusting the SL accordingly.
So the very Nanosecond the trade gets placed Balance = Equity = Margin.
Free Margin = Equity – Margin = 0
If the trade goes positive (Equity > 0) additional positions/lots can be added (Free Margin > 0). Let us assume a second trade is initiated, same SL as first trade, and both trades hit TP eventually.
Will this increase the balance of the account?
On the other hand, if both trades activate the same SL, which value will the balance have then?
I assumed that the broker did not interfere with a Margin Call or Stop Out, so both positions were closed at the SL.
Or would the broker intercept by closing the bigger losing position first?
Thanks.
The placing of a buy and sell in the same account maybe complicated or an alternative. Using 2 accounts – one for the sell and one for the buy is another alternative.
It’s probably an opion. Move on would be my guess.
Hi peter…in of one of your comments you state ‘The question does not talk about placing trades in both directions – way too complicated.’…is this something you know…or just your opinion…as i am still trying to work on this problem and keep coming back to placing a buy and sell at the same time to guarantee a win…..but will move on if this is a definite ‘no’.
The take profit on the account says 40 pip but they all 45.3 pip profit?
Can anyone work that out? The open price and close price are 40 pips apart, What happens in between?
First of all, sorry for my poor english.
There is something wrong in this account .
If you have $3426 you can open EURJPY short(long) position ONLY 8.69 standard lot. (2014.07.17 13:59 Idon’t know the exact GMT but USDJPY this time is about101.49).
If you add a new position as we can see in previous Artical then it must to appear in a NEW LINE and must to modify the TP (GREATER than original SL) . Like this:
http://www.doubleinadayforex.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/aud50pc9aug.jpg
My other thoughts are that we are only looking at the winning account which shows she made 40 points profit which is $5643 profit…that instead of her adding to a winning trade …that maybe she closed out part of the losing trade early….this would explain why she won $5643 and only lost $3426…I am still trying to do do the numbers on this idea.
Any thoughts on this ?
HI , i have just noticed that all trades have been taken at the 59th minute of the hour i.e.
1st trade 13.59 on 17th
2nd trade19.59on 17th,
3rd trade 2.59 on 22nd
4th trade 8.59 on 22nd
5 th trade 1.59 on 23 rd
6 th trade 9.59 on 24 Th.
Also just noticed that next trade was made in the same hour that the previous trade was closed with a profit
Not sure what it means….but I think does show that she was not waiting for any signal or particular price movements.
Also note, the approach above is a type of anti-martingale where you typically double up on your winners to ride a trend. In this case it isn’t quite doubling up (only 160%), but its the same approach.
Hi Dario,
Creating a profit of 160% of your account means there must be more equity available to leverage than the original starting balance. I can only assume this comes from either the broker bonus, or some other trades, or both. As I’ve suggested before, one method is to run an initial DIAD trade risking 100% of starting capital, then when it is up 60%, execute the top-up trade, which now has 160% of the starting balance as available equity to trade.
Does anyone else have any ideas to generate the 160% available equity?
Thanks Drew
Im not sure about the math but the only way she made more money with the winnings is maybe by not having all 64 accounts starting at the same lot size. Like 32 at 13lots and 32 at 8lots until the last level (6th) where she gained 170% approx at each level but saving on the way up on the losing side but not having all al if them at 170% profit target, maybe half at 100%.
What d u think ? Im trying to brainstorm from the data we have
So. We know she had 64 accounts but it can be traded on one. 6 levels, both long and short until the 6th level , with only one winning account. The one showed to us. No tops up apparently. So as Alex said the point is how to make more money while keeping the risk the same. He said also gamblers would see this strategy right away. So the answer might be the gambling approach applied to trading. So Martingale, Antimartingale, fibonacci sequence or others???
Also i dont think we can use any bonus since brokers wont let us use it as margin…
Did we discuss ever the solution or are we all off track??…
Seems like this thread is on the way out….
Does anyone want to know how it works?
Could you demonstrate too?
Hi witefog,
Is that MACD or RSI or other divergence? What timeframe are you finding works best?
Thanks Drew
Hi guys
I have been trading for a long time picking highs and lows very accurately with divergence. If you can master this one technique, you will make a lot of money with the Grid trend multiplier and the DIAD Ea’s. I have made several thousands of percent ( that’s correct – percent) with these two EA’s in a few months. What I am telling you here cost me over $100 000.00 to learn with all the courses and programs that I have bought, yet these two humble EA’s are worth their money in gold. Master the above and you will make lots of money.
Signing out
witefog
Sarah used 64 accounts. Apparently this all can be done in 1 account somehow. As quoted above.
“By the way you don’t need to do this using separate trading accounts – it can be done in one trading account.”
Hi witefog,
I can build an EA fairly quickly to test the rules. Do you want to work together on it? If so, please contact me at drewcox@email2me.net.
Thanks Drew
Another way to think about is as an anti-martingale strategy using an initial entry in each direction. Whichever one wins take out a second trade, leveraging your 60% winnings. The first two cancel out. The second round trades either hits break even or wins. Either way you start the cycle again. Having the 100% broker bonus gives the extra margin needed to give the trade room to move.
Using the multiple accounts allows you to do this 6 winning times in a row.
Sounds good in theory. Not sure of the maths to back it up. Maybe Ralph or Pieter or someone else can crunch the numbers.
Thanks Drew
Maybe she has not shown us the other 63 accounts that have failed?
That may work.
Looks like we will never know.
Hi all,
Here’s a scenario to think about….
The average daily range of the EURJPY is very close to 100 pips. So if I was setting up a 100% DIAD trade for this range (100) with one top-up I’d probably have the trigger about two thirds of the way to the target, say 60. This give lots of wiggle room for a retracement to not stop out at breakeven and still gives a good distance for my top up trade to profit.
So now if I run 2 initial DIAD trades in opposite directions, one will reach the top up trigger sooner or later. At this point I will have 160% of my starting capital in available equity – my original 100% + 60% profit from my trade. My bonus can cover the opposite initial trade in loss for the time being.
I can now use all my available equity (160%) for the top-up trade of 40 pips.
If it reaches my target 100 pips I have my 160% of starting balance as profit and the two initial trades in opposite directions cancel each other out as they are exactly opposite.
If the trade goes backwards and hits the breakeven point, everything still closes. Depending on the broker, they may trigger this sooner rather than later. I don’t think the figures really add up for this situation.
The underlying principle I’m suggesting is Sarah’s trades are the top-up trades which leverage the additional equity from an initial open DAID trade. By running the initial trades in both directions you don’t need to predict the marktet and one top-up trigger will always be hit.
A few problems with this approach include, the breakeven point may be sooner than the 40 pips as the broker is not likely to hang around hoping it all turns out well. It doesn’t explain 6 winners in a row in a single account.
Food for thought. Maybe this starts some thinking for you…
Thanks Drew
Bonus act as extra leverage but that doesn’t solve the “mystery” of how she was successful having the same TP and SL. When I said it would be sooner I was comparing the losing leg and the winning leg. If you deposit $1,000 and then it becomes $2,000 because of bonus you’d be stopped on the losing led before the winning leg hits the TP. If you were to play with the 40 pips for your TP the SL would be hit at 20 pips because once you are $1,000 negative the broker will close your losing position alas the winning position is still halfway there.
Hi Alex
I have worked it out, you will need some software or an EA to trade this. In 7 trades without taking into account any slippage, spreads or brokerage, a $1 000.00 account will turn into $1 458 000.00 guaranteed, every time with a 40 pip target.
t/p is 40, s/l is 40, b/e is 26, lots increase by 1.67
long 8.57 lots @ 137.0000 s/l @ 136.6000 t/p @137.4000 b/e @ 137.2600
short 8.57*1.67 lots @ which is b/e in above 137.2600 s/l 137.6600, t/p 136.86 b/e is 136.90 etc
First trade 8.57*1.67 = 14.11 then add 8.57 = 22.68 then multiply by 1.67 =38.27 then add 22.68 = 60.92 etc
The lot sizes were increase by 1.67 + 1
the lot sizes where increased by approximately by 1.67.
First trade 8.57 lots with a gain of $5644(14.11 lots used)
Second trade 22.68 lots with a gain of $15296(38.24 lots used)
Third trade 60.92 lots with a gain of $41055(102.64 lots used) etc
Just a matter of working out the top ups now.
Her top ups where added at 65% of the 40 pip (26.15) range. Inverse od 0.65 is 1.54 or 154%. This is where her winnings get added so she uses all margin.
Add the spread of 2 pips then you get approx 167%.
growth of account is 163% 169% 168% 155% 161% 131%
If you take the inverse of 0.65 ie 40/26.15 =1.54 or 154%
take into account spreads and its close to 160%. ie 40/24=167%
First top up is 65%. ie 26.15/40=0.65
All the top ups are 65%.
With Sarah, she started with $3426. With a 40 pip S/L Maximum number of lots is $3426 divided by 40 = 85.65 mini lots. 8.56 standard lots. Her first trade was 13.10 lots. So 4.54 lots where added somehow. Her first stop was $3426 divided by 131 = 26.15 pips to B/E. etc etc.
My understanding if you look at Sarah’s account is it was all done one 1 account.
Also the cash equity of an account can reach zero to be stopped out, not sooner, in the presence of a bonus.
Let us check WHY brokers actually offer bonuses.
Yes, but can a credit bonus not help in opening a position with a higher lot size (increased leverage) than without the bonus ?
Exactly. You cannot trade on bonus. If you have $1,000 and the account loses, you lose the $1,000, as you cannot lose the bonus (brokers are not crazy to give you free money for you to lose). Therefore, you’ll get stoped out earlier on the losing legs . Effectively this means that your SL are not the same as your TP.
Here is Alex’s short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPGLwCrzvI
Pieter, in order for this to work you’d need:
1 – that the bônus can be used as margin. I’m not sure if it can, as no broker would allow you to lose their money. In reality, I think the losing accounts would be stoped out halfway)
2 – that the broker lets you open several accounts with bonuses in all of them (altough you can use different brokers for that).
Anyone can comment on this?
By the way, am I right that all trades at each stage need to be placed at the EXACT same time?
Alex, at least to your clients would you disclose the strategy?
Great, I think you are very close.
If I am not mistaken, the total profit is $3000 since Account 4 contains the initial bonus also. And I guess the exact doubling up of the accounts is just an example to explain the process.
Other than that, regarding broker bonuses, are they offered with every trade or only once?
Thanks.
Could you at least tell the name of the gambling strategy? I am referring to your statement that Las Vegas gamblers would see it in an instant.
Most people here are obviously not gamblers, which is a good thing. 🙂
I do believe I have the answer as stated in my previous post. I will explain using 4 accounts. The principles stay the same for 64. I will also use random $ amounts.
Open 4 accounts with lets say $1000 in each. Assume you get 100% bonus in each. Starting capital is $2000 in all 4 accounts.
Place buy trades in 2 accounts and sell in the other 2 accounts, 40pip stop and 40 pip take profit. Using max lot size for the account.(Ignore margin for now)
Account 1 and 2 lose 40 pips and account value is $0.(we have anly lost $1000 in each as the other $1000 was bonus money.
Account 3 and 4 Win 40 pips. The accounts are now worth $4000 each.
Place another buy in Account 3 and sell in 4 risking the entire account balance of $4000.
Account 3 lose 40 pips.(Starting balance of $2000 + $2000 of the second trade – $4000 =$0.($1000 loss not $2000)
Account 4 wins 40 pips. (starting balance $2000+2000 of trade 2 + $4000 of trade 3 = $8000.
Summary
Account 1 = $-1000(not $2000 as $1000 was bonus money)
Account 2 =$-1000
Account3 = $-1000
Account 4 =$8000($-1000 starting capital) This account will show 3 wins in a row. If you used 64 accounts it will be more.
Total of $4000 profit.
I hope I did not make any calculation errors. If I did let me know. Maybe she did something else. I don’t know. But this does guarantee you one account with only wins depending on how many accounts you use.
Pretty good summary of where we are. As you say: how do you keep risk constant on losers and increase returns on winners could be at the heart of all of this.
There is not much more in the series – most have not really seen through the data already supplied. Unfortunately more pressing developments have sidetracked this series. Increasing returns of a successful trade and being able to decrease risk at the same time is somewhere at the heart of this. The true answer will probably not be disclosed as a step by step formula. This ability is too special to give away in a free series – some clients have come pretty close in the debate.
Yes, I agree. There’s nothing in the evidence presented so far to suggest that Sarah did anything but simultaneously win and lose about $1M, for a total net profit of 0.
Alex, without some kind of further data, we have little other than your reputation to assure us that Sarah is not simply showing us the winning side of her hedge, and not showing us the equivalent amount of losing trades that she also incurred.
Either she was fully hedged, in which case this is a pointless exercise, or at some point she made a call that one/some of her accounts were on a losing streak and thus shifted funds from those in order to recoup profits.
All the same, it amounts to at some point making a call that price is going up or down, or that some random strategy seems more successful than another for some reason. In that sense then, it is no different from any other trending or lot sizing strategy that relies on making some sort of subjective judgement call about future trends or price movements replicating recent ones.
Once again, the holy grail isn’t buried here, despite the somewhat deceptive figures shown. If Sarah did manage to pull a profit out of all this, then (like all trading methods) she must have been relying on some sort of predictive mechanism.
Ultimately, no amount of fancy money management will turn a losing strategy in to a winning one. However, if you’ve managed to identify a slight edge by some predictive means, then fancy money management can help to amplify that.
I suspect there is something in the specific timing of Sarah’s trades, and she is relying on some sort of break out or ranging strategy specific to the EUR/JPY, either relying on market opens or the doldrums respectively (again, predictive but no guarantees).
Alex, it feels like we’ve stalled or exhausted the possibilities here. Is there anything you can contribute to help get the ball rolling again?
We don’t care about the losing accounts bonus. Only the one account that ends up with all the wins.
Hi all,
One trading approach to get a single account with 6 straight winners from 64 trades is…
Round 1 – 64 trades, 32 each way, 32 win, 32 lose
Round 2 – 32 trades (previous winners), 16 each way, half win, half lose
Round 3 – 16 trades…
Round 4 – 8 trades …
Round 5 – 4 trades…
Round 6 – 2 trades, one wins
Guaranteed 6 wins in a row!
The trick remains of how do you make the winners larger than the losers. Otherwise you still end up with a net break-even minus all the brokerage and spread costs.
Assuming the above trading approach is used, Sarah’s trades are somehow more highly leveraged on the win side. Maybe the opposite trades, or some other trades (eg. DIAD) are in profit and used to add leverage. If these trades were the top-up trades which were already covered by the profit of the intial DIAD trades they could be more highly leveraged. Sounds way too complicated but seems to be the direction this series of articles is heading.
Any thoughts?
Thanks Drew
Not all are reveled yet Alex want us to think and debate about how it can be done. He have more articles about this that he will present in short time.
Best regarards
This is very confusing. Sarah didnt top up anything . Just 40 pips straight targets and stops.
Only variable is number of lots and trades. Getting 6 winnings while hedging is easy, but how did she make money if the losers are the same amount of winnings!
Yes i get it, she was profiting 170% on winning trades (no top ups) but nobody has explained how ? How did she profit 170% and only losing 100% on the other side per round?? Did anybody get it? I m starting to think we r wasting our time in here.
The bonuses cannot be withdrawn, they work as extra leverage. In my point of view the only way of succeding os if your TP is larger than your SL on every trade.
So I suppose we could have an account setup with pending orders for each possible outcome. So if we wanted to guarantee 2 winning trades, we would need 4 accounts. The first account would have a buy and a pending buy set at the +40 mark. The second account would have a buy and a pending sell set at the +40 mark. The third account would start with a sell and then a pending sell set at the +40 mark. The fourth account would be a sell first and then a pending buy at the +40 mark. One of the 4 accounts should win the 2 trades in a row.
If we wanted to guarantee 6 trades in a row, I suppose we would need 1 account for each possible outcome, and that is 64 possible outcomes…. 6 buys, 5 buys 1 sell, 4 buys 2 sells, 3 buys 3 sells……..etc.
Alex is this on track or my line of thinking is totally derailed?
Peace and Bliss,
J
I think I have It. It will be difficult to explain but it all has to do with broker bonus.
If you add up all the losses of the losing accounts and the wins in the final account showing 6 wins, it will add up to $0 as above. But if you subtract the bonus money you end up with a profit.
Do the calculations on a spread sheet and you will see it.
Maybe if we keep talking about this, brainstorming, Alex may show some mercy and teach us the method?
To make money at BlackJack, two things need to happen. The first is that one needs to have a win loss ratio of near 50/50. The second thing is that one needs to double down or bet more when the odds are stacked in your favor that you will win the hand, such as when you have an ace, king, queen, jack, or 10, and the dealer is showing a 5.
How can this info apply to getting the 6 guaranteed trades and accomplishing what Sarah did?
Yeah I agree the 64 accounts were needed because statistically speaking, you have a 1 in 64 chance of getting 6 in a row (2^6). So you enter a buy and sell, one is a loss, one is a win. You then go to the next lot level size on your winning account and hopefully, repeat that 6 times. But what happens if you don’t win a second time in a row on that account? You’re risking more than you won….?
Hi , I am now thinking that maybe we have all been thinking that we need to trade a buy and sell at the same time…so we will always have 1 win and 1 lose….however I am now thinking…that maybe statistically she may have used 64 accounts because that was how many she needed to get the results she wanted…even if she used100 accounts …or even 200 accounts…it still would have been a big overall win……or maybe it would only take 30 accounts if you got lucky.
So you can just make an educated guess of a buy or sell…,knowing/hoping that you are right 50% of the time
I am liking the 40 point stop loss and 40 top up with 28 point trailing stop. so then you have a chance of a total loss of one account , or a 170% win or a break-even …in which you can then try again .
But if we use the example of 64 accounts …..the chances are that you will win 32 of these accounts.
Then of the 32 …the chances are that 16 of them will be winners ……..and so on until you are left with one account with over 1 million dollars.
I agree. Her account does not show that she was topping up. She just increased lot sizes on the the winning trades.
So you’re saying that every top up trade must have been a loser?
SARAH’S RESULT
In Sarah’s case she started with 64 accounts and risked $ 3 426 in each. She lost $ 3 426 x 63 = $215 838 but the winners more than made up for it at a gain of $ 1 002 279. A net gain of $ 786 441 – Good money in anybody’s books. We only see her winning account – not the 63 losers.
You are only seeing the winning trades. There are also loosing trades.
Everybody keeps talking about her topping up her trades to get this system to work but if you look at the trading statement, nothing was topped up in this case. Just individual trades with a 40 pip TP
Trades would be placed in a grid system at intervals with varying lot sizes. There would be enough margin. So to have 3 winning trades you would need 2^3=8 trades on. 4 long and 4 short. Its a variation of a martingale system with S/L, T/P and T/S added in. Just need to work out where to place T/S (trailing stop), B/E, where to top up etc. (given that you plan to add lots to a winning position when the transaction goes positive by “x” pips). Can virtually start anywhere.
Most important thing is how far away to top up, how many lots to add to winning position. B/E, T/S etc
So it depends on your account size, what margin you have, whether fixed or non fixed broker etc.
With Sarah, she started with $3426. With a 40 pip S/L Maximum number of lots is $3426 divided by 40 = 85.65 mini lots. 8.56 standard lots. Her first trade was 13.10 lots. So 4.54 lots where added somehow. Her first stop was $3426 divided by 131 = 26 pips to B/E. etc etc.
Just need to know at what intervals after that and lot sizes, and B/E, T/S now.
You need to take into account that you will be adding to a winning position “x” points in your favour (given that you plan to add lots when the transaction goes positive by “x” pips) . As in Q2 below.
A trailing stop/or stop will be added somewhere also. That’s what the DIAD EA does.
2.If you have an account of $ 1 000 and you were considering a trade of 25 lots which has a 60 target and a 40 stop, what size following stop would you use to ensure you break even at worst, no matter what happens, given that you plan to add 10 lots when the transaction goes 40 pips positive (ignore spreads and margin)?
Answer: When the top up occurs profitability will be $ 1 000. (40 pips x 25 lots = $1 000). We are then adding 10 lots to bring the total lots to 25 + 10 = 35 lots. So $ 1 000 will be used up by 35 lots to break-even, so the stop has to be $ 1 000 divided by 35 = 28.5 pips or 28 pips to be sure from the current price.
You place 2 buy trades an 2 sell trades in 4 accounts with 40 pip stop and 40 pip take profit. 1pip = $1.
Account 1 $+40
Account 2 $+40
Account 3 $-40
Account 4 $-40
You then take the successful trades, buy in one account and sell in the other with increased lot size of 170% as Sarah did.
Account 1 $+108
Account 2 $-108
This add up to $0. It is making my head spin.
Never mind Alex. I just read your reply on other post.
Alex du Plooy Post authorAugust 22, 2014
She used a special account with very high leverage and a 100% broker bonus. The other thing is that she did not necessarily use the DIAD EA – she used the Forex trading principles on which it is based.
I thought the EA was designed not to let you blow account on first trade?
I was under the impression the ea took into consideration how much you have in your account to figure the risk and how many times you could try the strategy ???
How could I get password and read this? http://www.doubleinadayforex.com/how-to-guarantee-6-successful-forex-trades-in-a-row/
The above would certainly be the Holy Grail I think.
I can not see any topups in her statement, unless it has been edited, but somehow she could have managed lot sizes of all accounts in each stage of the process depending on the price level so that one account ended up with all six winners in a row finally.
If I am not mistaken, the other 63 accounts were wiped out completely each. So there must be a well defined method which is repeatable.
That she just got lucky is actually hard to believe given all the calculations involved at each stage.
I have never used MT4 MultiTerminal software before, but, for simplicity reasons, let us consider two accounts and both start with the same lot size trade (long and short approach):
What if the lot sizes depend on each other? Or in other words, depending on the current price, one could use an algorithm, or do it manually, to increase the lot size of the “potential” winning trade by reducing, partially consuming, the lot size of the “potential” losing trade.
In reality, is this even possible while the trades are still in action?
Theoretically, in the end the winning trade should have two times of its original lot size and the losing trade a lot size of zero.
Very Good observation – Yes that software is ideal – deal with multiple trading accounts like a Money Mmanager
She probably used a broker offering MT4 MultiTerminal trading software. Does this bring us closer to goal? 🙂
Interesting observation
Won’t we all – would you just give that type of information available away to people you don’t even know
I’d like to ask Sarah to tell us the whole story or send me it in email. 🙂
You wouldn’t be talking about martingale would you?
Interesting that Sarah’s initial deposit is not enough to cover her stop loss. 40 pips TP and 40 pips SL, profit is 5643, but deposit is only 3426. Had the first trade gone much past half way to her SL she would have been margin called. As such, she must have a simultaneous trade in the other direction.
You can’t make any money if you’re fully hedged. Her TP and SL are always 40 pips, so the only thing that can vary is lot sizing.
On this winning account, all profit seems to be reinvested in to the next trade. If she is not fully hedged, then the other accounts with losers in them must be reducing lot sizes on each trade relative to this account.
Thanks for that Peter, I hadn’t seen Alex’s comments in the other articles. It now makes perfect sense! Calculate the ODDS of 6 successful trades in a row…. 🙂
In order to achieve this type of result one has to use a specific type of broker account, specific leverage, a specific highly unconventional, mathematical/statistical forex trading approach. Also note that these results were achieved in a relative flat market ranging under 100 pips in the 2 weeks of trading.
We have already hinted that there are mathematical and statistical perspective aspects that helped Sarah turn $3 into $1 Mil in less than 2 weeks on a 100% guaranteed basis.
Below are some of Alex’s responses.
This is not an EA at all – It is manually traded using no Forex technique at all.
Please watch the future articles – the answer is infact in the 1st article – Las Vegas gamblers will see it in an instant.
Have a look at Sarah’s account again – she only used 40 pip Targets. There are no trades to find – this is a statistical system – so stop worrying about the trading side – the 6 trades are automatically 100% guaranteed to be successful. No need to put effort into that.
The objective of this series is remind traders that there are many methods of making money if they think OUTSIDE THE BOX. It has also been interesting to see how few traders have basic skills of lots size and breakeven stop calculation and have creative forex account usage knowledge.
Don’t be distracted by the brokers bonus – it is of no trading value and can’t be relied on to prevent a margin call when your own funds are depleted. The bonus however does finance the margin in some cases – that is it biggest use.
The question does not talk about placing trades in both directions – way too complicated.
Yes i think they must top up at some level after 20 pips and then again after 30 pips in winning direction and also move stop to break even. And maybe she try to cut her loose also by moving stop to break even if it moves in her favor some there. I think it is something like cutting looses and let the winners run and reproduce.
I looking forward to read and learn more about this.
Thanks, best regards John
risk/reward ratio (rr) 1:1 = 50% of trades you can loose to break even. 1:2 (rr) = 66% of trades you can loose to break even. 1:3 (rr) = 75% of trades you can loose to break even.
Thanks Natalie, yes it is still a very risky trade. And i dont know how could Sarah mad 170% gain on winning trades when she had 40 pips stop loss and 40 pips targets. How could she top up? Maybe the secret was in scaling lots but dont know how.
Thanks for yr time anyway
Hi Dario, the first and main question was’ How to create as many guaranteed Forex trades in a row as you want.’…so i guess I am mainly answering that question. It is possible to have 6 guaranteed winning trades in a row. But the hard part and scary part is that if your 1 winning account will offset the losses of 63 losing accounts.
Maybe Sarah just got lucky that her 6 winning trades were big winners…..I am not sure how you can guarantee that.
I am thinking also should not do all trades in 1 go…just in case you only get the $20 win…stagger them.
So as far as I can see…it is still a very risky trade
Thanks for going over the math Peter.
If you open two trades (buy and sell) say without a stop loss, and wait for the market to move. When the market moves enough in one direction such that one of the trades have enough gain, close the loosing side and open a new trade on the winning side with enough lots to guarantee that it will be a winning side of trades AND cover the loosing side. If this can be done it would guarantee a total winning series (buys and sells) — either a small gain or all the way to the full target. To do this you would probably have to scale down the initial lots, but it would be worth it to continually repeat this process.
Hi Natalie, thanks for post. I have few questiona:
With a 64K starting capital, what happens if u open 64 trades (32 BUYS and 32 SELLS, right?) and price retraces to +12 pips after you top up at +40 pips? dont u have 32 losing trades at $1000 each, and 32 winning trades at $20 each for a total of -$32,000+640= -$31,360 ? so at your first round u lost 50% of your capital no? Isnt it too dangerous ? u would need to win two trades in a row at 60 pips to regain the loss right?
Also in SARAH’S account she uses 40 pip stop and targets? how does she top up winning trades? how can she get 170% gains if she has same size stops and targets? I dont get it. could u help me understnd it? thank u!
DARIO
I am a newbie but the way I understand it is that your losing trade will be closed when the stop loss is hit. Then you manage the winning trade until you get an exit signal (fib level, hammmer-morning star, ma cross etc.). This system only helps you at the initial stages of the trade and gives you the psychological support as there is no prospect of losing big. And yes it is sometimes possible for whipsaws to produce two losing trades concurrently.
Yes, I agree, I was doing the same consideration. 70% is not bad at all, but it is not 170%…
Seems to be the squaring of the circle!
Peter thanks for running some numbers. I still dont get how to profit if price retraces after u top up (at +40) and hits stop loss at +12 . U’ll break even on one side but the other side either is stop out at (-40) or at -12 pips (if let open after topping up the winning side). -12pips*25 lots= -$300 .
Also how can the gain be 170% if we have to take into account also the losing side (-40pips*25=-$1000) so the gain is $1700-1000= +$700 so +70%
Am I missing something here? I d appreciate your opinion. thanks!
yes DIAD in daily opens or news time buy adding and move stop to be fast in a momentum full market it can go also there are strategys to DIAD with a risk of under 10 percent to get 100 percent maybe this is the answear.
Best regards
Hopefully this is clearer than the first time I tried to explain it….
you allocated $1000 each for 64 transactions.
You open up a buy and sell at a time. 40 pip stop loss and then one side is up 40 pips, add another 10 to winning trade use a 28 pip trailing stop loss . with a target of 60 pips profit. Minimum profit is the $20. max gain $1700. But a winning trade either way.
Repeat this buy sell combination for 32 times…you will end up with 32 winners.
Then start again with your winning trades[ accounts].Most hopefully will have up $2700 in them now.
Continue this until you are left with only 2 profitable sizeable accounts left. one of them will be a winner…and will have had 6 winning trades….however the size of the account will depend on by how much it won each time…but hopefully up to $387000.
Sorry …That was meant to say 28 pips
As was original stated you may have 64 seperate accounts , or trade and track on the same account ..but either way allocate enough equal amounts that each ‘account can lose say $1000 .I think you enter a buy and sell at the same time. Both with a stop loss of 40 pips. one side will lose $1000…the other side will lock in a profit of at least $20…but hopefully up to $1700 using trailing stop of $28.
As the losing side closes out you will open another buy and sell. At the end of round one you should have 32 winning trades and 32′ accounts’ that you have lost the whole thousand.
Hopefully your winning trades are mostly are now at $1000 plus $1700….so $2700.
Each round of trades you will lose half your accounts…but at the end hopefully you will have 2 profitable accounts and on the 6 trade on each account one will lose everything and the other one will win everything.
And although at the end you will have an account that has won 6 successful trade …you will still have to hope that it is one that has taken 60 pips each time and not just 12…but either way you have won 6 consecutive trades….and your $1000 account could be worth up to $387 000…less the $63 000 you lost along the way.
Hope this right and makes sense.
There would be buy and sell trades open, trailing stops on both and combine with DIAD EA and Q3 above.
You combine the DIAD EA with Q3 above.
The 3 Qs posed is a clue.
It has something to do with the 3 questions? See below
Answer to Q3 is 170%. Sarah’s account is increasing at 165% for each trade.
1.If you have an account of $ 1 000 and you were considering a trade which had a 40 pip stop and each pip was worth $1 – What are the maximum number of lots you could use, ignoring the need to finance margin and spreads?
Answer: $ 1 000 divided by 40 pip stop = 25 ($1 or mini) lots
2.If you have an account of $ 1 000 and you were considering a trade of 25 lots which has a 60 target and a 40 stop, what size following stop would you use to ensure you break even at worst, no matter what happens, given that you plan to add 10 lots when the transaction goes 40 pips positive (ignore spreads and margin)?
Answer: When the top up occur profitability will be $ 1 000. (40 pips x 25 lots = $1 000). We are then adding 10 lots to bring the total lots to 25 + 10 = 35 lots. So $ 1 000 will be used up by 35 lots to break-even, so the stop has to be $ 1 000 divided by 35 = 28.5 pips or 28 pips to be sure from the current price.
Test or proof: If the price goes back to + 12 pip (40 pips -28 pips) from the entry the initial 25 lots will have a 12 pips x 25 lots = + $ 300 gain and the new 10 lots will have a 10 lots x -28 pips = – $ 280 loss. This will give a small $20 buffer for the break-even result.
3.Ignoring spreads and margins, assume you have an account of $ 1 000 and you had a successful trade which ran for 60 pips. You started with 25 lots and then added 10 more lots when 40 pips positive. How much is your gain in $ and as a %.
25 lots x 60 pips = $ 1 500 plus 10 lots x 20 pips = $ 200 = Total gain is $ 1700 ($1500 + $200)
This is $1700/$1000 x 100 = 170% gain in one transaction.
AHA!!! I think I see.
If only we can see all of Sarah’s trades in the account then we would know. We only see the winning trades, not the losers.
When one direction loses the other is in profit. Move the winning position to Break Even, so there will only be 1 loser, not 2 losers if price retraces before hitting the TP. But still does not “guarantee” a winner.
It would have to be traded continously too.
The question is if you get stopped out on the winner for breakeven (after you have scaled into the trade), how do you avoid the other trade being a loser as overall you’ll be $0 on the winner and have a partial loss on the loser.
You then have to try and make sure the winner, if stopped out, pays for the loser.
I’ve been playing around with it but I couldn’t get the math to work.
Guys, it has nothing to do with the currency pair, the ATR or high volatility. It’s all about the math – it’s about adding to your trades in a way that maximizes the profits so that they are larger than the losses.
The stop and target is the same – 40 pips for each.
Ratio 1. 10 per trade. 2 trades buy and sell in the same time. If you risk 1 % in a both and Tp is 100 pips. One trade toward 15 pips and move the stop to brake even, the other trade hit the stop. Risk still 1 %. Now 100 pip tp it ‘s very difficult. We need long candles and now the volatility is lost.
Alex, I have a question: the secret seems to be high volatility. Did she use something based on the average true range?
She had to make more than 100% per winning trade, otherwise she’d be breaking even at each round. Having said that, one easier approach would be to just open 2 opposite positions at each time with 50% of your account. After collecting the results, repeat the operation. After 13 rounds you’ll turn a $1,000 account into a million given a 150% return on the winning side of the trade. Remember: you have to more than double on the winning side to offset the loss on the other side.
Hi Alex,
I’ve read this article over and over again. I cannot understand the method in the manner in which it is described here. An example of this trading/gambling technique would be very helpful. The example can be totally made up and say something like “Trader A wishes to obtain 2 guaranteed trades in a row, and so Trader A opens up 4 accounts… In account 1 he places 1 buy with a SL and TP and of 50 pips, and a TS of 28 pips, in account 2 he places 1 sell with a SL and TP of 50 pips….. account 3…. in account 4 he does this….. accounts 1-3 lose for a total loss of _________, account 4 wins for a total win of __________, trader then moves on to the next step….. etc.”
I would be willing to pay money to understand what you are trying to tell us. I’ve been trading over 10 years, studied and tested 100’s of systems, I consider myself smart, I generally comprehend easily and rapidly, I cannot wrap my head around this as its taught here.
Peace and Bliss,
J
Alex, this article in indeed very interesting, I am so eager to read new posts from participants to know what other people think, but I just can not clearly see how could this be possible, I could do the same thing as you say, guarantee my trades, even decide what I want them to be, all buy winners, all sell winners, whatever secuence, the balance would get high yes, but I see no clear way to get the equity at the same level to net profits.
Maybe I am missing something big here, you are all welcome to share your thoughts and maybe someone could show me the path to see through this uncertainty.
Sam.
I’m not getting this.
“enter a buy in one account and a sell with the same size stop and target in the other at the same time – one of them will be successful”
So you have two trades open, a buy and a sell.
And yes, one will hit target and make a profit, but the other is a loser to the same amount, net result zero gain (less the 2 x spread).
This certainly a crazy approach to trading, my immediate thought is th manage 64 account at the same time !
U will need to have enough PC’s or PC power to start with enough RAM.
Using the math questions and answer as the formulea will help.
As for “The Real Secret” if you use the HIGH Volatility currency pairs(that don’t give much whiplashes), trading with the trend, during major news times you should in theory help with the profit we looking for.
Maybe the DIAD AUTO EA that is being working can work like this. I know that another EA Forex Envy, the owners of the EA feed in the news times, but in their case, not to trade during news times.
I just noticed that her currency pair was eurjpy, which is usually a very volatile pair. I guess that maybe her secret – trading the strategy on eurjpy!!!
I tried a strategy like it some years ago. It was called 40/50 trading system where TP was 50pips and SL was 40pips. The target was 10pips per trade and it went well for the number of times i tried it then. But later (last year), i tried it again, but this time, both SLs were taken out. So i believe that it has to be in a trending market. If it is in a short range market, but stop losses could be hit.
But it is possible she has an entry strategy that made all her trades go well. So please, we would love to get her entry strategy…
I am also thinking the same question.
Whilst an impressive return, when you look at the end result, a return of $1,002,279 vs a loss of $215,838 or profit of $786,441 is a return of just over 3X risk/loss. That is surely a more realistic way of looking at Sarah’s return, rather than saying she risked $3426 to get a return of $1,000,000.
Is it not feasible to open the trades on the same account and chart? However there must be a limit to the number of trades you can enter doing this. Any comments?
Hi Alex,
We going to need your help here, I am also struggling to see the 100% guarantee. The market can wip-saw us and take out both stops.
Hi Alex,
If you enter 2 trades in two accounts, one buy, on sell. Is it not possible for both stops to get hit?
David
It would have to be in high volatility times. Also a good Idea to enter at the close of the H1 candle.
Maybe I’m missing something here. I can see that her target was around 43 pips and the SL around 26. But what is to stop the price from hitting one SL, then turning around and taking out the other SL resulting in 2 losses??
Place the trades during high volatility times.