市场资讯及洞察

在使用TradingView 的Pine Script编写策略或指标时，变量命名是代码规范与可读性中至关重要的一环。一个清晰、规范的命名不仅能让脚本结构更直观，也方便日后维护和优化。尤其是在复杂策略中，往往需要同时处理多组价格数据、信号条件与参数设置，若命名随意或重复，极易导致逻辑混乱或计算错误。良好的命名习惯应当遵循“见名知意”的原则，使变量名称能够准确反映其功能或含义。

本文将从变量命名的基本原则、常见命名方式及实用建议出发，探讨变量命名的重要规则。

‍

1. 变量命名的基本格式：

‍

[<declaration_mode>] [<type>] <identifier> = <expression> | <structure>

‍

其中符号“|”表示“或”，方括号“[]”内的内容可有可无。
<declaration_mode> 表示变量的声明模式，可为 var、varip，或省略。
<type> 为可选的类型关键字，可带限定前缀。大多数情况下无需显式指定类型，详情可参考类型系统页面。
<identifier> 是变量名。
<expression> 可以是字面值、变量、表达式或函数调用。
<structure> 则可为 if、for、while 或 switch 等结构。

‍

2.下划线在pine script的特殊含义

‍

在声明变量时，可以使用单个下划线 _ 作为变量名。赋值给 _ 的内容无法被访问或引用。你可以在脚本的任意位置、任意次数地为 _ 赋值，即使当前作用域中已存在同名赋值也不会产生冲突。
这种写法常用于处理不需要使用的返回值，尤其是在函数返回元组时。例如，在编写布林带（Bollinger Bands）脚本时，如果只需要上轨和下轨而不关心中线，就可以用 _ 来忽略多余的返回值，使代码更简洁明了。

‍

例如：

[_, bbUpper, bbLower] = ta.bb(close, 5, 4)

‍

3. 变量重新赋值

‍

在 Pine Script 中，变量重新赋值（variable reassignment）是通过 := 运算符 实现的。与普通的变量声明不同，重新赋值只能在变量已经被声明并且拥有初始值之后进行。也就是说，必须先使用 = 定义变量及其初始值，之后才能使用 := 对该变量进行更新或修改。变量重新赋值在脚本计算中非常常见，尤其是在需要根据条件动态更新变量值的情况下。例如，当某个变量在全局作用域（global scope）中被声明，而在函数、循环或条件语句等局部结构（local block）中需要为其赋予新的值时，就必须使用 := 进行重新赋值。

‍

4. 变量声明的三种方式

‍

在 Pine Script（TradingView 的脚本语言） 中，变量的声明方式决定了它在脚本执行过程中的“生命周期”和“持久性”。Pine Script 中主要存在三种变量命名方式：默认变量（on each bar）、var 持久变量，以及 varip 实时持久变量。三者在数据更新、跨K线传递及实时刷新时的行为各不相同，理解这些差异是编写稳定高效脚本的关键。

‍

首先，默认变量（on each bar） 是 Pine Script 的标准声明方式。当你直接写出 x = close 这样的语句时，Pine Script 会在每根K线计算时重新执行这行代码，变量只在当前K线的作用范围内有效。当新的K线生成时，变量会被重新赋值并覆盖之前的结果。换句话说，它并不会“记住”上一根K线的状态。这种变量适合用于即时计算，比如均线、RSI、布林带等指标的数值处理，不需要保存历史信息。

‍

其次，var 关键字用于声明“持久变量”（persistent variable），它只在脚本第一次加载时初始化一次，之后在每根K线计算中都会保留其上一次的值。也就是说，var 变量具有跨K线记忆的特性，非常适合用于需要累积或记录状态的逻辑。例如，可以使用 var count = 0 来建立一个计数器，每当满足条件时累加一次，而该值会在接下来的所有K线上继续保持，不会被重置。通过 var，脚本能够在不同K线之间传递数据，实现更加复杂的交易逻辑，如连续信号识别、状态标记、仓位控制等。

‍

最后，varip（var intrabar persistent） 是一种更高级的变量形式。它与 var 类似，同样能在不同K线之间保留数据，但它还具备“实时K线内持久性”。也就是说，当当前K线尚未收盘、价格仍在变动时，Pine Script 会在每次实时刷新中多次执行脚本，而 varip 能够在同一根K线的多次计算中保留之前的值。相比之下，普通 var 在实时K线内每次更新时仍会重新计算，而不会累积。这使得 varip 在处理高频数据、逐tick逻辑或实时监测信号时尤为有用，比如在检测价格突破瞬间或计算实时成交量变化时，可以通过 varip 追踪K线形成过程中的细微变化。

‍

联系方式：

墨尔本 03 8658 0603

悉尼    02 9188 0418

中国地区(中文）  400 120 8537

中国地区(英文） +248 4 671 903

‍

作者：

Michael Miao | GO Markets 悉尼中文部

‍

本来今天想聊聊澳洲央行副行长最近公开谈到的有关澳洲有可能陷入经济低速增长的怪圈的问题，但是想想过去几篇文章都是说澳洲的，自己都觉得有点过于多了。但是很多内容不是我不想说，说国内经济情况，就怕你懂的，说欧美呢，估计大家也没啥兴趣看，说数字货币，也容易被黄标，导致我都不知道说什么好。那想来想去，最近看似比较大的事件就是美国国会关于预算用完，政府停摆的讨论的。

我们都知道，几乎每年来那么一次的停摆，今年又来了。这次停摆的时间再次打破历史记录，到上周末为止，已经超过38天了。没钱发工资、预算批不下来、议会还在吵。看着熟悉吧？因为这已经不是第一次了。过去10年，美国政府停摆过4次，每次都是在最后一刻“凑合”过关。从奥巴马到拜登，再到现在的老川，都一样。

有人说这就是美国政治的一部分，可在投资眼里，这更像是一种系统性疲态——就是那个世界最强信用体的裂缝，越来越多了。而且每次的解决方案都是很不要脸的继续提高债务上限，换句话说就是多印一点美元。

BUT, 就算再无赖，也得按照自己定的规矩来：

美国财政部的数字摆在那儿：

截至2025年10月底，美国的联邦总债务已经突破34.9万亿美元，还在以每秒钟大约4万美元的速度增加。光是2024财年，财政赤字就超过1.7万亿美元。而且更离谱的是，光“还利息”这一项，2025年预计就要花掉1.1万亿美元。什么意思？

就是美国政府借的钱，不是用来搞建设、科研或就业，而是越来越多地在还旧账的利息。这像不像信用卡欠多了，每月只够还最低额？加入一艘航母需要1000亿美元造价（不包括后期维护保养），那每年美国国债需要支付的利息就等于10艘航母的造价。

再看点细的。现在美国政府每收进1块钱税，大概要花掉1块三。财政支出和收入差了三成，完全靠举债撑着。以前大家信美国债是“无风险收益”，现在越来越多的投资机构开始犹豫了。这么每年收100花130，总不是个办法啊，这要是某一天出现点啥问题，是不是之前发美债的都有可能不算了？

那我们老百姓这么想，自然其他国家也会担忧。所以到2024年底，日本和中国这两大美国国债持有人，都在减持美债。日本在过去一年里减少了大概500亿美元持仓，中国更是创下了十年新低，只剩不到7700亿美元。

什么意思？全球主要买家在撤退。买这个美元纸币，太没有安全感了。买了也不是自己的，说查封就查封，说不能用就不能用。这算什么？当甲方还要这么受气。

讲真，这种对美元信用体系开始怀疑的局面在历史上是第一次。美国长期靠发债维持政府运转、靠美元霸权转嫁通胀。可现在，财政失衡、政治对抗、地缘风险……都在削弱那个“美元信仰”。

你想啊，美元强的底层逻辑是什么？是航母和F22，哦不对，说错，重来啊，美元的底层逻辑是什么？是信任。

大家相信美国政府永远能还钱、永远有能力印钱、永远不会倒。可现在连他们自己内部都吵得不可开交，国会关门、债务上限拉扯、甚至连总统都公开说“预算快撑不住”。美元的信任体系开始打折。

这时候你就得想：如果世界对美元信心动摇，那资金往哪跑？

答案其实很简单——黄金。（其实数字货币也起到了部分作用，但是因为过于分散，种类太多，导致资金无法集中）

别看黄金没利息、也不分红，但它有个谁都替代不了的特性：它不是谁欠谁的债。

你拿着美债，信的是美国政府的信用；你拿着黄金，信的是全人类几千年的共识。几千年前的埃及法老都爱这个，肯定没错。

最近几个月黄金的表现也印证了这点。

2024年年底，国际金价突破每盎司2400美元的新高，到了2025年10月，又一次冲上2500美元附近。你说这只是地缘政治？那只是表面。深层原因，是全球在寻找美元之外的安全锚。

咱看印度、土耳其、俄罗斯这些国家央行，去年都在疯狂买金。根据世界黄金协会的数据，2024年各国央行净增持黄金超1000吨，创下历史第二高。

这说明：连各国政府都不太敢再押宝美元。我的看法很简单：

黄金这波不是短线冲动，而是长期趋势在切换。

美元几十年的霸权红利，靠的是全球信任。可当信任开始松动，这个故事的主角可能要换了。除非美国再次把老二老三整服气了，之后各位小弟就会再次对大哥的地位不会质疑了。作为群众，咱们其实不希望看到这一天到来，不论结局谁赢，期间的不可控因素太多，一旦一个不小心，咱们就要见证咱们现代人类最后的辉煌了。

最后，我不建议大家一股脑地“梭哈黄金”，但起码你得让自己有点配置。就像以前老人说的——“仓里没点金，心里没底气。”

那具体咋搞？

你可以分几种方式：

1.    实物金：最笨但最踏实。买金币、金条，放保险箱。但是每次买卖差价几乎等于价格的10%，交易成本极高。

2.    纸黄金／ETF：操作灵活，适合不想拿实物的人。缺点是，手里没有那个沉甸甸的金子，总感觉只是个数字而已。

3.    黄金矿业股：风险高、弹性大，适合激进投资者。这个就看人品了，如果运气好，5倍10倍不是梦，当然，更大的机率是，没挖到，宝马变单车。

从长远来看，我个人倾向于使用自己资金10-30%购买ETF作为“稳健基础”。这不是投机，而是保险。你不指望它天天涨，但万一美元系统出事，它能救你一命。

再说一句现实点的。

现在美国债务增长速度远高于GDP增长。也就是说，他们靠印钱维持系统平衡。通胀虽然被压了一点，但核心通胀还在3%左右，远高于美联储2%的目标。

这意味着：美联储降息空间有限，财政却还要继续借钱。

那结果？

货币越来越多，信用越来越稀。

黄金，就是对冲这种“信用通胀”的最好工具。

有人问：“那美元真的会崩吗？”

麦哥的回答是：不会马上崩，但它会慢慢失去神圣光环。这不，11艘航母还是很厉害的。

历史上没有哪个超级货币能永远称王。英镑用了100多年从巅峰掉下来，美元可能也会经历同样过程。如果大家学过历史应该可以知道，黄金在1971年美元脱钩后，从每盎司35美元涨到现在的2500美元。它没变，是货币的实际价值在变。

所以，简单总结：

美国政府停摆也许能暂时拖过去，债务上限也许能再抬一点，但信任这种东西，一旦开始透支，就很难补回来。你不能指望一个连工资都快发不出的政府，永远当世界的“信用中心”。美元可能还会强一阵子，但我认为黄金这波超级大牛市，才刚刚开始。

各位读者，我不是劝你买金发财，而是提醒你：这个世界的信用体系，正在慢慢换轨。

写完以后，赶紧用上网乘着黑五买一堆没用的垃圾。虽然咱们知道黄金美丽，价格长虹，但是咱日常生活，还是纸币方便啊。

生活还得过，但是咱们脑子不能糊涂。对吧？

‍

免责声明：GO Markets 分析师或外部发言人提供的信息基于其独立分析或个人经验。所表达的观点或交易风格仅代表其个人；并不代表 GO Markets 的观点或立场。

联系方式：

墨尔本 03 8658 0603

悉尼    02 9188 0418

中国地区(中文）  400 120 8537中国地区(英文） +248 4 671 903

作者：

Mike Huang | GO Markets 销售总监

‍

‍

最近很多新闻都在疯狂炒作13F公布的美股大空头Michael Burry的空头持仓，因为在公布的持仓当中显示Michael Burry通过期权大量看空英伟达和Palantir两家AI行业的风头企业。

Michael因为在08年的次贷危机中大幅看空美国的地产行业通过金融衍生品CDS的互换合约在08年全球性的金融危机中大赚特赚了一笔而成名，此后根据其真实经历改编的电影《大空头》更是风靡全球。

近期从监管部门的公开资料中显示Michael Burry管理的Scion在2025年的Q3披露文件中显示买入了大量的英伟达和Palantir 的看空期权，其中1.87亿美元看空英伟达，9.12亿美元看空Palantir，市场也被这波操作吸引带动，两家公司股价承压后连续下挫，甚至是Palantir的CEO在社媒上破防怒斥为何要做空那些赚的盆满钵满的公司？

其实实际情况是媒体在新闻上喜欢噱头来博取眼球，看似8成仓位押注两家AI企业暴跌的持仓实际上是他持仓的看空期权的名义价值，而真实对应的期权成本可能远远小于实际情况。Michael习惯性的运用金融衍生品工具的特性，利用可控范围的风险对可能产生的AI泡沫破裂进行重要压注。并不是说他真的把80%管理的资产押注在了两家风头正盛的公司的暴跌上，而且因为相关信息的缺失，什么时候离场，以及是否在对冲其他持仓等因素其实外界并无法确切知悉，所以现在就对美股AI报以极度悲观的态度是非常情绪化且不准确的。

而根据Michael自08年以后的投资来看其交易实际上并不是每次都很准，具体总结如下：

• 2015年12月预测股市崩盘：Burry在2015年底公开警告股市将在未来几个月内崩溃然而，S&P 500在随后一年（2016年）上涨约11.96%

• 2020年3月重注看空市场：Burry在疫情初期下重注做空但从2020年3月低点起，美股在12个月内反弹约72%这被视为他的重大失误之一。

• 2022年9月警告股市未触底：Burry在9月发推警告市场将持续“失败“，尚未见底但从2022年9月到2023年8月，S&P 500反弹约21%他的预测又一次“早于市场“。

• 2023年1月敦促“卖出“：Burry在1月底发单字推文“Sell”，预言经济衰退和新通胀浪潮，结果，S&P 500在2023年全年上涨约24.23%，远超他的悲观预期。

那对于普通投资者究竟如何合理看待这种明星基金经理的持仓呢？

其实大部分资管公司都有自己的持仓和投资逻辑，无论是多还是空，可能都是整体布局的一个部分，媒体放大一个角落使得很多投资者在面对相关问题时显得管中窥豹一般无法总览全局，从Michael的一系列表态中也可以看出他虽然暗示了本轮AI的泡沫和2000年科网崩盘存在相似性，将其作为对市场的警告或许不失为一种合理的看待方式，但是这并不意味本轮AI的发展和走势就将戛然而止，AI的发展或将在接下来更长期的时间里影响每一个人的生活。

免责声明：GO Markets 分析师或外部发言人提供的信息基于其独立分析或个人经验。所表达的观点或交易风格仅代表其个人；并不代表 GO Markets 的观点或立场。

联系方式：

墨尔本 03 8658 0603

悉尼    02 9188 0418

中国地区(中文）  400 120 8537中国地区(英文） +248 4 671 903

作者：

William Zhao | GO Markets 墨尔本中文部

‍

Markets retreated last week, pulling back about 2.5-3% from record levels. While the decline is modest, it is marked by several headwinds that could create further pressure this week.

Government Shutdown Reaches Historic Length

The ongoing shutdown has now reached record duration, and there's still no clear resolution in sight. Healthcare remains the primary sticking point between the two sides. Some reports suggest potential progress, but the jury's still out on whether any deal will materialise or gain bipartisan support before the Thanksgiving holiday season.

Key Economic Data May Be Delayed

The shutdown's impact extends to data releases. Market-influencing government reports, including jobs numbers and CPI data, may be delayed this week — CPI is still technically scheduled, but the shutdown could affect its release. This data delay will make it harder to gauge the economy's true direction and could inject further volatility into markets.

Earnings Season Continues to Impress

Despite these macro headwinds, corporate America is delivering exceptional results. We're seeing an 82% EPS beat rate and 77% of companies exceeding revenue expectations. While we're in the final 10% of S&P 500 reports, some important retail stocks are still due. These consumer-facing companies could provide valuable insights into spending patterns and economic health.

NVIDIA Tests Critical Support Level

AI stocks are facing pressure, with NVIDIA testing a key technical level around $180-$185. The stock experienced five consecutive days of losses before bouncing strongly on Friday with a major wick rejection. If support at $180 breaks, we could see a drop to $165. However, Friday's bounce suggests a possible retest of $193. This is a crucial moment for the AI sector leader, and its direction could influence broader tech sentiment.

Market Insights

‍Watch the latest video from Mike Smith for the week ahead in markets.

Key economic events

Keep up to date with the upcoming economic events for the week.

Artificial intelligence stocks have begun to waver slightly, experiencing a selloff period in the first week of this month. The Nasdaq has fallen approximately 2%, wiping out around $500 billion in market value from top technology companies.

Palantir Technologies dropped nearly 8% despite beating Wall Street estimates and issuing strong guidance, highlighting growing investor concerns about stretched valuations in the AI sector.

Nvidia shares also fell roughly 4%, while the broader selloff extended to Asian markets, which experienced some of their sharpest declines since April.

Wall Street executives, including Morgan Stanley CEO Ted Pick and Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, warned of potential 10-20% drawdowns in equity markets over the coming year.

And Michael Burry, famous for predicting the 2008 housing crisis, recently revealed his $1.1 billion bet against both Nvidia and Palantir, further pushing the narrative that the AI rally may be overextended.

As we near 2026, the sentiment around AI is seemingly starting to shift, with investors beginning to seek evidence of tangible returns on the massive investments flowing into AI, rather than simply betting on future potential.

However, despite the recent turbulence, many are simply characterising this pullback as "healthy" profit-taking rather than a fundamental reassessment of AI's value.

Supreme Court Raises Doubts About Trump’s Tariffs

The US Supreme Court heard arguments overnight on the legality of President Donald Trump's "liberation day" tariffs, with judges from both sides of the political spectrum expressing scepticism about the presidential authority being claimed.

Trump has relied on a 1970s-era emergency law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to impose sweeping tariffs on goods imported into the US.

At the centre of the case are two core questions: whether the IEEPA authorises these sweeping tariffs, and if so, whether Trump’s implementation is constitutional.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett indicated they may be inclined to strike down or curb the majority of the tariffs, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned why no president before Trump had used this authority.

Prediction markets saw the probability of the court upholding the tariffs drop from 40% to 25% after the hearing.

The US government has collected $151 billion from customs duties in the second half of 2025 alone, a nearly 300% increase over the same period in 2024.

Should the court rule against the tariffs, potential refunds could reach approximately $100 billion.

The court has not indicated a date on which it will issue its final ruling, though the Trump administration has requested an expedited decision.

Shutdown Becomes Longest in US History

The US government shutdown entered its 36th day today, officially becoming the longest in history. It surpasses the previous 35-day record set during Trump's first term from December 2018 to January 2019.

The Senate has failed 14 times to advance spending legislation, falling short of the 60-vote supermajority by five votes in the most recent vote.

So far, approximately 670,000 federal employees have been furloughed, and 730,000 are currently working without pay. Over 1.3 million active-duty military personnel and 750,000 National Guard and reserve personnel are also working unpaid.

SNAP food stamp benefits ran out of funding on November 1 — something 42 million Americans rely on weekly. However, the Trump administration has committed to partial payments to subsidise the benefits, though delivery could take several weeks.

Flight disruptions have affected 3.2 million passengers, with staffing shortages hitting more than half of the nation's 30 major airports. Nearly 80% of New York's air traffic controllers are absent.

From a market perspective, each week of shutdown reduces GDP by approximately 0.1%. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the total cost of the shutdown will be between $7 billion and $14 billion, with the higher figure assuming an eight-week duration.

Consumer spending could drop by $30 billion if the eight-week duration is reached, according to White House economists, with potential GDP impacts of up to 2 percentage points total.

You've been using a 30-pip trailing stop for as long as you can remember. It feels professional, manageable and relatively safe. 

But during volatile sessions, you see your winners get stopped out prematurely, while low-volatility winners drift back and hit stops that are relatively too tight. 

Same 30 pips, different market contexts, but inconsistent in the protection of profit and overall results.

The Fixed-Pip Fallacy?

Traders gravitate toward fixed pip trailing stops because they feel concrete and calculable. The approach is easy to execute, readily automated through platforms like MetaTrader, and aligns with how most people naturally think about profit and loss. 

But this simplicity masks a fundamental problem. 

A twenty-five pip move in EURUSD during the London open represents an entirely different market event than the same move during the Asian session. The context matters, yet the fixed-pip approach treats them identically. 

This becomes even more problematic when you consider different currency pairs. GBPJPY might have an average true range of thirty pips on an hourly chart, while EURGBP shows only ten. The same trailing stop applied to both instruments ignores the reality that volatility varies dramatically across pairs.

Timeframe introduces yet another layer of complexity. Take AUDUSD as an example: a ten-pip move on a four-hour chart barely registers as meaningful price action, but on a five-minute chart it represents a significant swing. The fixed-pip method treats these scenarios as equivalent.

The natural response might be to use something more sophisticated, like an ATR multiple. This accounts for your chosen timeframe, the instrument's normal volatility, and even session differences. But it brings its own complications. 

When do you measure the ATR? Do you use the value at entry, knowing it might be distorted by sessional effects? Or do you make it dynamic, which becomes far more complex to implement in practice?

Perhaps there's another way forward that doesn't rely on abstract measures of volatility but instead responds directly to the movement of price in relation to the trade you're actually in—accounting for your lot size and the profit you've already captured. 

Maximum Give Back: The Percentage Approach

Instead of asking "how do I protect profit after fifty pips," ask "how do I protect profit after giving back a certain percentage of open gains." 

Consider a maximum give-back threshold of 40%. When your trade is up one hundred pips, the trailing stop activates if price retraces forty pips from peak, locking in a minimum of sixty pips. 

But when that same trade reaches two hundred fifty pips of profit, the stop adjusts, and now it activates at a one-hundred-pip pullback, securing at least one hundred fifty pips. The stop distance scales naturally with the magnitude of the win you're sitting on.

This creates a logical asymmetry that fixed pip approaches miss entirely. Small winners receive tighter protection. Big winners get room to breathe.

The approach adapts automatically to what the market is actually giving you in real time, without requiring you to predict anything in advance. 

You don't need to maintain a reference table where EURUSD gets thirty pips and GBPJPY gets sixty. You don't need different standards for different instruments at all. 

The same 40% logic works whether the average true range is high or low, whether volatility is expanding or contracting. It is designed to be more adaptive to regime changes than fixed-pip stops, potentially requiring less manual recalibration as it's responding to the trade itself rather than to abstract measures of what the instrument normally does.

The market tells you how much it's willing to move in your direction, and you protect that information proportionally. Nothing more complicated than that.

Key Parameters to Specify in Your System:

• Maximum Give Back Percent: 30-50% is typical, but is dependent on how much profit retracement you can tolerate. 
• Minimum Profit to Activate: In dollar amount or an ATR multiple form entry. This prevents premature exits on tiny winners, e.g., if it has moved 5 pips at 40% that would mean you are only locking in a 3-pip profit.
• Update Frequency: Potentially every bar. More frequent, but there may be issues if there is a limited ability to look at the market (if using some sort of automation, this could be programmed).

Is Maximum Giveback Always the Optimum Trail?

As with many approaches, results can be highly dependent on underlying market conditions. It is important to be balanced. 

The table below summarises some observations when maximum giveback has been used as part of automated exits.

The major difference isn’t likely to be an increased win rate. It is about keeping more of your runners during high-volatility price moves rather than donating them back to the market.

It may not always be the best approach, as different strategies often merit different exit approaches.  

There are two obvious scenarios where fixed pips may still be worth consideration.

• Very short-term scalping (sub-20 pip targets)
• News trading, where you want instant hard stops

Integrating Maximum Giveback With Your System 

You may have other complementary exit filters in place that you already use. Remember, the ideal is often a combination of exits, with whichever is triggered first.

There is no reason why this approach will not work well with approaches such as set stops, take profits and partial closes (where you simply use maximum Giveback in the remainder as well as time-based exits.

Final Thoughts

To use fixed-pip trailing stops irrespective of instrument pricing, volatility, timeframe, and sessional considerations is the trading equivalent of wearing the same jacket in summer and winter. 

Maximum Give Back trailing adjusts to the ‘market weather’. It won't make bad trades good, but it could help stop you from cutting your best trades short just because your stop was designed for average conditions. 

The market doesn't trade in averages but has specific likely moves dependent on context. Your exits should not be average either.