Is martin so bad? Or do you have to know how to cook it? - page 21
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
I am in complete agreement with you. I am not sitting around 24 hours a day on forums and minding my own business. I am occasionally writing codes. Unfortunately I don't know what the demo version of the Expert Advisor is, since I use my own code.
The demo version of the Expert Advisor is a free copy of the bot, with restrictions on real trading, lots, or other. You can test it, but you cannot make profit.
That is, I can test the veracity of the growth curve, you have declared, on this and other Instruments, or on synthetic quotes (they are problematic in mt5, but it can be solved). Then it will become clear how robust the algorithm is and whether it is just a function of a particular historical plot, and outside of that it is plummeting at the rate of spread.
Once again, equity can be drawn on a known section of history, so it is not proof. A real-time report in the form of a table can also be modified or fabricated.
The only proof of the trading algorithm efficiency can be obtained by personal testing of the bot version with restrictions on real trading. Or at least the investor access (just don't ask what it is))))) to a real account.
It may well be that you have a great bot, but you need reliable evidence.
Although I don't believe in profitable bots cheaper than $100K. But who knows...
Will the investor password suit you?
Yes, please do. But not to me specifically, but to all the participants. At least it will be possible to see how you trade. This is just a proof of your professional competence as a trader. The argument in your favour, but not in favour of the bot.
For everyone to be able to evaluate exactly the bot, you must make a demo version of the Expert Advisor and present it to the public.
Yes, please do. But not to me specifically, but to all the participants. At least it will be possible to see how you trade. This is just a proof of your professional competence as a trader. The argument in your favour, but not in favour of the bot.
For everyone to be able to evaluate exactly the bot, you must make a demo version of the Expert Advisor and present it to the public.
Is the investor password okay with you? Look for the ModifyBot signal and study it to your heart's content.
Is the signal a password? And the username?
So are you going to give me the investor password or are you being reckless again?
You're triple-Facepalm... It's not good for marketing. First you accidentally find your own video, then you confuse the source code with a demo, and now the signals and investor access to the account...
I advise you to change your nickname and the name of the Expert Advisor before the next attempt)) But I'll note your first and last name ... Although it's probably a fabrication.
You're like lordlev. The same kind of promotion. Are you him by any chance?
I see no point in continuing the dialogue further. Good luck.
Judging by the video, nothing interesting, the usual bouncing system, I doubt it's fabricated curve, and the fact that the martin as MM, means that the drain is inevitable. A couple more jumps to the bottom and that's it, the multiplication is geometric. If the author is educated as a quantist, the use of martin indicates that he is either not very well educated, or Cossack with DC, they like to promote such "illegal" strategies. They do not do that, they do not know how to make a profit. They say that life is bad without a sucker.
I do not understand what there are so many words about. It's really embarrassing. It's clownish in a way.
The logic of martin is built on the assumption of probabilistic relationship between losing and profitable closing neighboring positions, as if the loss increases the probability that the next position will close in profit, while the lot increases geometrically in the expectation of it. But there is no correlation. Why would there be any correlation? It's an illusion. A cognitive distortion.
That's why MARTIN=SLEEP.
Don't be fooled. Martin is the stupidest way to exploit risk. The irony is that most IM systems use almost the opposite principle, in the sense that it assumes inertia in profit or loss and the volume increases with a succession of good positions, and reduces with a succession of bad, or simply the % of funds as volume, which is also the opposite of martin.
There is not a single prediction strategy, even theoretically, where martin would be a better MM choice. For a hypothetical perfect forecast the MM is elementary, it is 100% of equity per position. In other cases it is % of free funds calculated depending on maximal drawdown for a particular TS on forward testing.
iModify stake for being uneducated, for promotion, and in general for everything stake, Goon stake for getting into such a stupid conversation about nothing and only helped modify to promote a sucker plum.
Fucking losers.
Judging by the video, nothing interesting, the usual bouncing system, I doubt it's fabricated curve, and the fact that the martin as MM, means that the drain is inevitable. A couple more jumps to the bottom and that's it, the multiplication is geometric. If the author is educated as a quantist, the use of martin indicates that he is either not very well educated, or Cossack with DC, they like to promote such "illegal" strategies. They do not do that, they do not know how to make a profit. They say that life is bad without a sucker.
I do not understand what there are so many words about. It's really embarrassing. It's clownish in a way.
The logic of martin is built on the assumption of probabilistic relationship between losing and profitable closing neighboring positions, as if the loss increases the probability that the next position will close in profit, while the lot increases geometrically in the expectation of it. But there is no correlation. Why would there be any correlation? It's an illusion. A cognitive distortion.
That's why MARTIN = SLEEP.
Don't be fooled. Martin is the stupidest way to exploit risk. The irony is that most IM systems use almost the opposite principle, in the sense that it assumes inertia in profit or loss and the volume increases with a succession of successful positions, and reduces with a succession of unsuccessful, or simply the % of funds as volume, which is also the opposite of martin.
There is not a single prediction strategy, even theoretically, where martin would be a better MM choice. For a hypothetical perfect forecast the MM is elementary, it is 100% of equity per position. In other cases it is % of free funds calculated depending on maximal drawdown for a particular TS on forward testing.
iModify stake for being uneducated, for promotion, and in general for everything stake, Goon stake for getting into such a stupid conversation about nothing and only helped modify to promote a sucker plum.
Fucking losers.
.....Thanks for the compliment....))
I'm posting the testing stats.... that's enough.
...
That's why MARTIN=SLIVE.
Don't be fooled. Martin is the stupidest way to exploit risk. The irony is that most IM systems use almost the opposite principle, in the sense that it assumes inertia in profit or loss and the volume increases with successive successful positions, and decreases with unsuccessful ones, or just % of money as volume, which is also the opposite of martin.
...This is much worse, I can't imagine anything worse. In my opinion the only and only effective MM is martin and its variations (which preserve the principle of increasing the lot after a sell), everything else is an illusion. But probably many people will disagree with me.
Anyone can disagree, but few can provide concrete evidence that their MM is right.
You can discuss the math as long as you like, but where is the application of this "Correct" math?)
This is much worse, I can't imagine anything worse. In my opinion, the only and only effective MM is martin and its variations (which preserve the principle of increasing the lot after a sliv), everything else is an illusion. But probably many people will disagree with me.