I came across a video this weekend on YouTube by a Forex trader that I thought was well worth sharing.  If you like this one, he has other videos on his YouTube channel.  Enjoy!

My EUR/USD anti-hedge short orders were hit, and then stopped out today, for a loss of 133 pips per order. 

I've been experimenting with the Jacko anti-hedge order for a few months now, and am reconsidering its place in my toolbox.  I know that many traders on Jacko's thread swear by it, but I've not had much luck with it.

I like the idea of getting back in the market in the direction of the trend after being stopped out and price starts moving back in my direction, but I'm not comfortable with blindly setting my entry at the price where I was stopped out and my initial stoploss such that I'm risking the same amount as on the original trade.

I would rather, after being stopped out for a loss, evaluate a possible re-entry based on the price action that has developed after being stopped out of my original position.  So this is how I think I'll proceed going forward, and we'll see how it works out.

The possible Head and Shoulders pattern on EUR/USD that I was watching on Thursday ended up forming the right shoulder and completing the pattern, breaking out to the downside as expected.  This is great news, right??  Yes and no.

Unfortunately, as the pair broke through support, price moved so quickly that my sell order was hit, but was cancelled due to bounds violation.  Oanda would not accept my order because by the time they could fill my order, the market was below the price I was trying to enter at.

This is my one beef with Oanda (and I've heard others voice this complaint on message boards) - if you set bounds on an order and price moves through your order past the bounds before you get your fill, they cancel your order.  I would prefer that they leave the order in place in case price moves back to within the bounds on the order.  This would have resulted in my getting a fill on Friday on the next 5 minute bar following the bar that initially penetrated my price level and caused my order to be cancelled, and I'd now be sitting on a risk-free trade.

That's the bad news.  The good news is that my analysis was correct.  I've just got to forget this one and move on.  I think, though, that I'll widen my bounds on my future orders, because this is not the first time that this has bitten me.  I'd rather give up a few pips than miss my fill, especially since I trade medium to long term.

I Frequent several forex trading message boards and often see questions like the following from individuals who are just getting into Forex:

My broker only allows me to trade with leverage as low as 10:1.  I don't want to risk that much - can I somehow set it to 1:1?

This type of question reveals a misunderstanding of leverage that many new traders have.  Leverage does not equate to risk.  It simply dictates the largest size of a position or positions a trader can take.

I came across a clear and simple explanation about the difference between these two concepts tonight in an article entitled What leverage is really all about, written by John Forman at The Essentials of Trading.  Since I couldn't improve on the author's explanation if I tried, I've copied an excerpt below (emphasis mine):

Allowable leverage tells you one thing - how big you can trade, either in terms of position size or number of positions. That’s it. No more. No less.

Risk comes down to one thing, and one thing only - the size of your position. The larger the position, the greater the risk. It’s that simple, really. High degrees of available leverage certainly allow for larger positions, but they do no require them.

The thing that I think causes the most confusion is thinking in terms of margin and not account size. If you trade at 100:1 leverage you would have to put up 1% margin. That means a 1% move in the market against you would wipe out your margin deposit. If you were trading on 50:1 leverage the same 1% move against your trade would only take out half your margin. That seems like less risk.

Here’s why it isn’t.

Assume a $10,000 account and a $100,000 trade size. For a 100:1 leverage account the margin requirement would be $1000, while at 50:1 it would be $2000. If the market moves against the position by 1%, that would mean a $1000 loss to the account, or a 10% decline in account value. It doesn’t matter whethere the trade was done in a 100:1 or 50:1 leverage account. A 1% move on a $100,000 position will always represent a 10% change in account value for a $10,000 account.

The only time differences in leverage mean differences in risk is when you are talking about different position sizes, basically meaning using all available funds for margin. The 100:1 leverage $10,000 account could trake $1 million, while the 50:1 could only go as high as $500,000. Clearly, when the accounts are maxed out like that a 1% move in position value is different. The 100:1 account would be wiped out, while the 50:1 account would only lose have its value.

So, assuming a constant position size, a trader does not necessarily risk more by using higher leverage.  Higher leverage just means that the trader can take a larger position or more positions if he/she so chooses.  Hopefully this will help clear up this mystery for some.

Stops are an important weapon in most traders' arsenals, and a good exit strategy will keep a trader from losing too much on a trade or giving too much back after a trade moves in to profit.

Though I agree that every trader should have an exit strategy prior to entering a trade, I've often struggled with determining which of the myriad of strategies is the best approach.  Which strategy will maximize my profits and minimize my losses, while at the same time not stop me out before my trade really takes off?

Here's what I've come up with over the years...

Initial Stop

Part of planning my trade before I ever place the order is determining where my initial stop will be placed.  In fact, the distance between my entry and my stop determines how large my order will be, so I don't know how many units I can buy or sell until I know where my stop will be.  I like to place my initial stop just below the recent swing low when I'm going long or just above the recent swing high when going short.  There are two reasons for this:

1. I place my trades in the direction of the prevailing trend when the market is making higher highs and higher lows or lower lows and lower highs.  If price takes out a prior swing high/low, I will no longer have a reason for being in the trade.
2. Placing my initial stopped based on a prior swing high/low takes volatility of the instrument I'm trading into account.  If I were to use a fixed pip amount for my initial stop, on the other hand, it may be too close or too far for the current market conditions.  A 100 pip stop, for example, which might have been suitable for the EUR/USD a year ago, is too close for times of increased volatility like we've seen this past month.

Breakeven Stop

As soon as my trade moves in to profit by a reasonable amount, I like to move my initial stop to breakeven.  This allows me to, as the old adage goes, "Never let my winners turn into losers."  By moving my stop to breakeven, my trade essentially becomes risk-free and I can let it run for as long it wants to move in the right direction.

Trailing Stop

If I haven't been stopped out yet and my trade continues to move in my direction, I'll start to periodically move my stop to lock in profits.  I've never been fond of using profit targets to exit my trades - I know some traders use them with great success, but they don't fit my personality - so I like to use trailing stops as my profit-taking exit strategy and let the market take me out when it's ready to turn.  I haven't, however, completely settled on the type of trailing stop I prefer, so usually I'll open a position and exit half of it based on the first of the following two methods, and exit the other half based on the second:

1. Trailing Stop Based on Price Action -When the instrument I'm trading makes a minor pullback (that doesn't stop me out) and then resumes its trend, I adjust my stop to just below/above the recent pullback.  I like to keep my trailing stop below/above the most recent pullback for the same reasons that I place my initial stop just below/above the recent swing.  If the market turns against me and takes out my stop, my reason for being in the trade is no longer there, I take my profits and move on to looking for the next setup.  This method works great in a market that is consistently making higher highs and higher lows (or LHs and LLs) in an orderly fashion.
2. Fixed Amount Trailing Stop - When the instrument I'm trading makes a new high (or low), I adjust my new stop to be the distance of my initial stop below (or above) the new high (or low).  This type of trailing stop generally locks in pips faster, but has a higher risk of stopping me out early before the trend has reversed, leaving pips on the table.  On the other hand, if the trend is not strong or nearing its end, this strategy can make some pips where the former trailing stop strategy might not.

I think both of these trailing stop methods are sound strategies, and time will tell which one is better or if they are better used in conjunction, as is currently my practice (using the first method for half of my position, and the second method for the other half).  I work full-time on weekdays, and the platform that I use does not offer trailing stops, so I adjust my stops manually a couple of times during the day (usually once in the morning, once around lunch-time, and once in the evening).

Update 1/6/09 3:06 PM:  Regarding trailing stops, I've abandoned the use of a "fixed amount trailing stop" and have been using a "trailing stop based on price action" exclusively once my trade is profitable and I've closed my first half at 1R.  In addition to the methods of exiting a trade presented in the original post above, I occasionally go ahead and exit the second half of my trade if I get a clear signal in the opposite direction of my position, even if my trailing stop is a ways away.