Lot sizes vs spreadbetting

[qwertyuiop1]

Some guy gave me a system - but the results of his equity curve are based on 1 lot contract. (IT was for EURUSD future contract)

How do I translate this into spreadbetting language?

He made 80,000 pips over 2000 trades - but this meant buying 1 lot contract size per trade.
If I instead buy £1 a pip how many pips would I have made in the same period?

 

[Roberto]

He made 80,000 pips over 2000 trades

If I instead buy £1 a pip how many pips would I have made in the same period?

His expectancy is apparently +40 pips per trade, on balance. At your proposed stake that's +£40 per trade, so +£80,000 in total.

If it's been honestly and accurately reported to you, if it isn't backfitted, if - going forward - the performance remains unchanged, if you can match his outcomes exactly by spreadbetting, and if your dealing costs aren't significantly different from his.

Depending on a whole range of variables and details you haven't specified, those might just turn out to be very significant "ifs": in my experience, they always do, when "some guy has given someone a system". This time next year, Rodney, we'll be millionaires.

 

[qwertyuiop1]

Are you sure though? So what you are saying is that buying 1 lot is the equivalent of trading £1 per pip yes?

If that is the case then you are correct.

But what if 1 lot equates to £10 per pip in the spreadbetting world?
Then that means if I go £1 per pip I would have made £8,000 - not £80,000.

So the crux of my query is - does one lot of EURUSD definitely equate to buying £1 per pip in spreadbetting?

 

[mpups]

Some guy gave me a system - but the results of his equity curve are based on 1 lot contract. (IT was for EURUSD future contract)

How do I translate this into spreadbetting language?

He made 80,000 pips over 2000 trades - but this meant buying 1 lot contract size per trade.
If I instead buy £1 a pip how many pips would I have made in the same period?

you've been a member since 2008 and are asking such a basic question? i dont get it

 

[qwertyuiop1]

you've been a member since 2008 and are asking such a basic question? i dont get it

Wow ! What an irritating person you are mr keyboard warrior.

So I'll give you a chance to guess it. Can you figure it out ?

 

[mpups]

Wow ! What an irritating person you are mr keyboard warrior.

So I'll give you a chance to guess it. Can you figure it out ?

i dont get this either

 

[qwertyuiop1]

Ok. Don't worry yourself. Looks like you don't get a whole lot.

 

[mpups]

Ok. Don't worry yourself. Looks like you don't get a whole lot.

cool thanks

...He made 80,000 pips over 2000 trades - but this meant buying 1 lot contract size per trade.
If I instead buy £1 a pip how many pips would I have made in the same period?

asking THIS after 9+ years...

:whistling

 

[qwertyuiop1]

cool thanks



asking THIS after 9+ years...

:whistling

Ok - well if you're so smart then why don't you answer the question?

To clarify - If I buy one lot contract size of EURUSD, then how much would I need to bet per pip with a spreadbetting firm to give me the same exposure?


A previous poster said its the equivalent of betting £1 per pip.
Do you agree? If not then what is the number?

 

[Dowser]

Hi qwerty, this link may assist you in your quest...

Here

 

[Roberto]

A previous poster said its the equivalent of betting £1 per pip.
Do you agree?

For heaven's sake, Qwerty, there's nothing to disagree with - except basic arithmetic, which has been universally agreed on since the days of Euclid or before.

From your own figures, your man made an average of 40 pips per trade (derived simply by dividing his 80,000 pips by his 2,000 trades), so if you're going to bet at £1 per pip, you're therefore going to make £40 per trade, aren't you? Over 2,000 trades that will therefore be £80,000.

It's factual (subject to the considerations mentioned in my original response).

A child of 7 or 8 can work that out.

Why on Earth are you asking people if they "agree" or want to suggest a different number? Sorry, but your question makes no sense at all.