1200 subscribers!!! - page 30
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Alexei! And a good healthy fight is really very interesting.
take any movie, what kind of westerns will you watch if it doesn't have a good fight!
No need to pretend that there was no discussion of this statement involving the developers.
I said that the slippage is not large and not necessarily for the worse for the subscribers...
and it took you a few pages after Renat said it, to get your point across in your post
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/167008/page17#comment_4007730
Okay, then this thread, as I understand it, is maintained by you for the sake of scheming and brawling?
This thread is about Signals service - it's strange that you don't notice it for some reason.
All discussion revolves around one question - whether it is correct to take into account such an indicator as "the number of subscribers" in the rating of signals.
In parallel in constructive discussion of this question - you and others like you with words: "bile", "toad", "stifle" and others.
It is not hard to see that no one pays attention to such comments.
And it is very strange that you and others like you don't want to understand - no one is interested in Taras' signal in this thread, no one is interested in Signals service and how to position your signal in this service - do you understand?
And that's the reaction of you and people like you and that's the intrigue and the fight -- which is what appeals to me from a psychological point of view -- as a reaction of people.
I was not able to get a good look at the quality of my subscriptions.
The drawdown of the maximal one and a half months was less than 5%. it means that subscribers made more profit than the drawdown (remember, 1.5 years ago subscribers were twice less). i.e. it was wrong to call them "the crowd" which is subscribed to the wrong place.
2. there was a statement that each deal has a slippage of 150 pips on average.
As far as I understand, there is double copying and trades are copied quite well. it means that subscribers with single copying are not worse.
3. Many people here are calling for justice... they talk about unfairness... but what should I call it?
I can also tell you about a problem
Yesterday someone (introduced himself as a girl) in Skype began to ask about my trading ... the risks ...
In addition, I can tell you that the problem may be that yesterday the person (who introduced herself as a girl in Skype) started asking questions about my trades and risks.
if i understand correctly, this broker is copying my strategy for his clients, bypassing mql services (and, consequently, me).
if i understand correctly, then this broker copies my strategy to his clients via the MQL service (and therefore bypasses me).
If I understand correctly, then this broker is copying my strategy to his clients via the MQL service (and therefore bypassing me).
no way!
2. There was a statement that each deal has the average slippage about 150 points.
The statement is fundamentally wrong.
It is enough to look at the slippage of the signal under discussion to see slippage in the range of 0-3 points. And this average slippage is both negative (we have entered worse than the Provider) and positive (we have entered better than the Provider).
In the next site update only negative slippages will be taken into account (execution price is worse than the Provider's one), which will show cleaner statistics of negative slippages.
This thread is about Signals service - it's strange that you don't notice it for some reason.
All discussion revolves around one question - whether it is correct to take into account such an indicator as "the number of subscribers" in the rating of signals.
In parallel in constructive discussion of this question - you and others like you with words: "bile", "toad", "stifle" and others.
It is not hard to notice that no one pays attention to such comments.
And it is very strange that you and others like you don't want to understand - no one is interested in Taras' signal in this thread, no one is interested in Signals service and how to position your signal in this service - do you understand?
And that's the reaction of you and people like you and that's the intrigue and fight -- which is what I'm attracted to from a psychological point of view -- as a reaction of people.
Not you personally Andrew!
>>>All discussion revolves around one question -- whether in a rating of signals to consider such indicator as "quantity of subscribers" correctly.
>>I think it's RIGHT!
and it's necessary to show something else - full transparency is the way to trust.
Not you personally Andrew!
>>>All discussion revolves around one question - whether or not the rating of signals should take into account such an indicator as "the number of subscribers".
>> I think it's RIGHT!
and it's necessary to show something else - full transparency is the way to trust.
It is not allowed to discuss signals in branches, neither yours, nor the other one you are calling here to evaluate.
For information (I just don't want to clean the thread again).
but I don't think that signal should have been allowed to appear either...
If you allow it, I will delete the title in that post...
Okay, let's take your first post in this thread.
Oh my god, you have a flaw in calculation! But if it were your signal that has 1000+ subscribers (which you want just tremendously), you would talk differently. Conclusion - the merger of competitors under the pretext of "flaw in the calculation. But you are looking only at yourself and "that guy with 1000 + subscriptions". And you don't take MQ's interests into account at all. And their interests are such that if people come here and spend money - everything is correct and, as I remember, here already @Renat Fatkhullin said that the rating is calculated as it should be.Again, there's no talk of draining the competition. We are talking about the flaws in the rating. And what Renat said that the rating is considered as it should be, well, in six months he will think to do differently, and it does not matter who said what, even if one of us was right. Renat will never say he was wrong, this is his psycho-type.
As for the service's profit, it is more profitable for the service to have subscribers spread among different providers.
Yesterday someone (introduced herself as a girl) on Skype started asking me about my trading... the risks...
The only thing I should have known for sure is that I'm not a trader, and I don't know how to make a good one.
in the terminal -- in the Terminal panel -- there is a Signals tab
She doesn't need to say anything about mql5.com
p.s. Taras, you sometimes make very strange statements - I sometimes doubt that you personally know anything about signals in general or your signal in particular.