Rules under Work - page 8
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
If it's about trust management, I won't trust anyone with a ruble until I've had an explanation as to why a successful trader would need someone else's money.
There is a programmer trader X.
He has $1000 and a strategy that brings 100% a year.
That's $83 a month.
What is better for him - to trade on his own, or to manage the deposit of $100000 and receive, say, 30% of profit per month?
Total >$2700 per month.
There is a programmer-trader X.
He has $1000 and a strategy that brings 100% a year.
Total is $83 a month.
What is better for him - to trade on his own, or to manage a $100000 depo and earn 30% of profit per month?
Total >~$2700 per month.
For some reason I'm drawn to rearrange the letter like this: There's H. a programmer-trader
He's better off doing what he's better at.
And if he is so confident in his wonderful strategy, let him take this sum on credit and get not 30, but 80% of profit. Or is it too shy?
For some reason I'm drawn to rearrange the letter like this: There's H. a programmer-trader
He's better off doing what he's better at.
And if he is so confident in his excellent strategy, let him borrow this sum and get 80% of profit instead of 30, or is it too risky?
Risking someone else's money is somehow safer, though indecent :D
And if X is working as a freelancer at home, who will give him a credit? :D
Probably some kind of a flatlander :)
We know, we've come across it :)
If it's about trust management, I won't trust anyone with a ruble until they explain to me why a successful trader needs someone else's money.
I also can't understand how a trading system can work for a month and then stop working. Usually this is the result of tweaking to the story with a tester that I don't even know how to use. Although it can be checked even with a tester. Change the currency pair or timeframe. If the result changes strongly, the TS is discarded. It would not even be easy to sell it to someone. The usual explanation is that the "parameters are optimized for a particular pair and a particular timeframe". They just forget to add that they have also been optimized for a certain timeframe and that this timeframe is in the past. If there are people here who do something like this, I understand why they are so reluctant to give the source code.
There doesn't have to be a direct proportion between risk and profit unless we're talking about a single trade.
And if the basics of creating efficient and workable trading systems exist, work and are known to all, then why does almost everyone lose?
P.S. I also thought of something else... If the TS you've made for a customer brings a good profit, you can not worry that the source code will go for hands. It will go only if it plummets. Or brings a stable, but ridiculous income.
1. I meant trust management. I meant automatic trading account management with TS which brings 10/100/1000 percents of profit per month.
If we are talking about asset management, then investing large sums in projects that bring 100% or more per month, pure suicide (with such success, and can be "ZHMURKI" play).
2. Yes very simply, let's talk about TC with returns of 100% per month. I don't even want to speak about such a nightmare as 1000% (there's no system, there's pure luck and stupid adaptation to the history).
I have to try very hard, with all sorts of external factors the trading system would return more than 3-4 months on average 100% per month.
With such a result after the first month it is better to withdraw the initial deposit or drastically reduce the risks (and hence the profitability).
3. You probably will be very surprised, but just a "shoosh" but fitted the TC in most cases and people are thrust into the guise of another GRAAL.
PS
The fate of the cheap mass-produced goods is simple: either it works for three months (in some cases more), or it is subjected to a mass of improvements.
About TOPKU somehow it is not very desirable to speak, as all the same sooner or later there will be people ready to repeat a feat.
Not a flatter at all. And not a pips man either. kind of a 24/7 guy. always open. It's always open. Very simple system. dozens of trades a day from the beginning of the story to 2006. I don't know how to get the miltilt from the brokerage. I don't know how to get the milt from the brokerage. I don't know how to get the milt from the brokerage.
Although I've got clients who hold their positions for a short time and have earned fabulous amounts of money...
If it's about trust management, then I won't trust anyone with a ruble until I've been told why a successful trader would need someone else's money.
There is a programmer-trader X.
He has $1000 and a strategy that yields 100% a year.
The total is $83 per month.
What is better for him - to trade on his own, or to manage the deposit of $100000 and receive, say, 30% of profit per month?
Total >~$2700 per month.
Not really.
Let's say he has a strategy that consistently returns 100% a year. Which is approximately $83.33 per month.
The question is what's more profitable for him:
1. Trade on his own account and stably receive these 83$;
2. Sell one or two copies of the Expert Advisor for $50-100 (average $100 per month);
3. Take control of $ 100,000 with compensation of 50% of profits (which in this strategy will be approximately $ 4166.66 per month).
PS
I assume that if we are talking about trust management the best solution would be to reduce the risk to an average return of 50% per annum (which would allow earning about 2083.33 per month).
The source can be a well-designed template, with lots of extra features, classes, etc. It may consist of a bunch of blocks (inludes, for example) and only some of the conditions in it may vary. Are you ready to give six months (in a simple case) of work, in the source code of a dozen different files of one system (system, in the sense of interaction with each other), in which only the signal module (one class(file)) differs?
I understand, we can use standard tools to crash crash the masks, and it's not a pity. But if huge efforts are put into the template, how can we do it? No, are you ready?
It seems to me that the only viable option is to wrap your template in a plugin library.
The customer has to get the source anyway, and I'm more than sure they won't agree to hand over the compiled MQ files.
And if you tell the customer that the logic will be in the source, but all the routine work will be hidden in the library, he may agree.
It seems to me that the only viable option is to wrap your template in a plug-in library.
The customer has to get the source anyway, and I'm more than sure they won't agree to hand over the compiled MQ files.
And if the customer was told right away that the logic will be in the source code, but all the routine work will be hidden in the library, he may agree.
1. Why won't they agree? If the client and the contractor agree that part of the code will be hidden who and why should forbid it?
2) Library is good. But then it is not quite clear what is "hidden" and in which library?
2. the library is good. But it's not quite clear what is "hidden" and which library?
I don't know about anyone else, but MQL5 Wizard's architecture has really impressed me. More precisely, the architecture of solutions created by it. Indeed, it's all about including Modules of signals, trailing stop, etc. If you have a similar architecture at the Executor, it is enough to leave the custom module open and hide all other logic.
... In addition, it is possible to brazenly use the logic (architecture) of MQL5 Wizard, and then brazenly sell it to a customer at a special price by copying (hiding) this logic in a compiled file.