Is martin so bad? Or do you have to know how to cook it? - page 37
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
This is your personal delusion.
What is my delusion?
What you think I'm mistaken about. Martin does not diversify by martin.
What makes you think that? Two completely independent assets are independent of each other. One, for example, is built on gold, the other on EURUSD. At one point one went bust, the other increased tenfold.
I can withdraw profits from diversification.
What makes you think that? Two completely independent assets are independent of each other. One, for example, is built on gold, the other on EURUSD. At one point one went bust, the other increased by a factor of 10.
I can take the profits of diversification off the table.
He does not take anything from anything. He'll come, he'll say something like "sinkers", "martinophiles", and will run away again until the next time.
Apparently Zixpert has a sad experience with such systems, but the fact that it did not work out does not mean that it is not possible.
He didn't take anything from anything. He will jump in, mutter something like plumers, martinophiles, and run away again until the next time.
Apparently, Zeekspert has had some bad experiences with such systems, but just because he didn't succeed doesn't mean it isn't possible.
Of course if the martin is losing it is unfortunate and of course if you diversify as a professional trader 223231, it will also lose one day, because I'm afraid there is not enough capital for trading with so many instruments. I think we should ideally divide the instruments by deposits for a normal diversification and a limited choice of such instruments at Forex, not counting shares and exotics like USDDKK, USDZAR, but with gold, there are not more than 6, all the rest will be hardly called diversification and the risk will only increase while taking this number of instruments.
I imagine something like this: we divide the deposit into 5 parts, i.e. 5 instruments will be traded, maximal drawdown for each instrument is 20%. If there is a 20% drawdown, a lock on this instrument until further actions are defined (4 working instruments remain). Work off the drawdown with other instruments - close the lock or destroy it. Of course, for each instrument the initial lots should be calculated and correspond to the number of instruments.
At the moment I'm dealing with this very question with my Bot.
I imagine something like this: we divide the deposit into 5 parts, i.e. 5 instruments will be traded, maximal drawdown for each instrument is 20%. If there is a 20% drawdown, a lock on this instrument until further actions are defined (4 working instruments remain). Work off the drawdown with other instruments - close the lock or destroy it. Of course, for each instrument the initial lots should be calculated and correspond to the number of instruments.
At the moment I'm just dealing with this question with my Bot.
It is quite difficult to provide a deposit for 5 instruments, the risk will increase many times with each new instrument, if you do not divide it into deposits. If we're talking about a lot, 3 instruments will be enough, I sell EURUSD, and on a meeting I buy EURCHF and sell USDCHF, for example.
I have not come to the final option yet, I am digging this topic hard now, it may well be that I will have to work on separate deposits, if I cannot find another optimal solution.
I've already checked it, so it's better not to spread out in one deposit. I think this will be enough for the most capricious trader, and those who use 15 instruments for martin are doomed.)