Is martin so bad? Or do you have to know how to cook it? - page 29
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
Romantic, what can I say... A wise guru... one should not doubt the guru's words. But agree such a story could be told in reverse...
And here you have accused imodify as a profane or a saboteur, as if rollback systems do not work at all and MM is applicable to them.
Martingale works fine for rebounding TS and poorly for trending TS, for the simple reason that it is based on the assumption of a pullback.
15%/85% is a credible trend/flat statistic.
Yeah, it's a true lie pulled out of thin air to justify it. And the numbers are so flat. Just go ahead and trade. Guru. :)
Do you believe in your own 15/85 maths skills? Can you formalize where a flat starts and where a trend ends? Can't you?
When you can, we'll check it out together. Send me a script that will prove your proportion.
All martinophiles can be safely relegated to the nubes, the probability of making a mistake tends to zero.
Traders in general, especially in forex, can be classified as noubs, also based on statistics. The margin of error will be very small, which is why in civilised countries there are such restrictions on entry into this business. But that's not the question. The question is whether there is a context for Martingale in principle. I claim there is, and quite an extensive one, in trading rather than near-market petty-fraud techniques. But Martin as any strong tool has its context of application and is a great danger for small deposit and TS with prediction quality like a coin.
But this is not the proof of martin's badness, in such conditions one should not trade at all.
Traders in general, especially forex traders, can be categorised as nerds, also based on statistics.
Make a sampling among successful traders and among those who are losing on martingale and compare the statistics.
Assuming BP=SB then MM in the form of Martingale will give a quick loss with any prediction system. But this is not proof that martin is bad, you should not trade under such conditions at all.
You are right, it's a lie, pulled by the ears to justify it. And the numbers are so straightforward. Just go ahead and trade. Guru. :)
Do you believe in your own 15/85 maths skills? Can you formalize where a flat starts and where a trend ends? Can't you?
When you can, we'll check it out together. Send me a script that will prove your proportion.
You do realise that "trend" and "flat" are very heuristic concepts. It can be defined very differently, e.g. by summing bars with Kaufman's efficiency coefficient greater than some threshold. Either the sum of the ratio of Momentum totals to the sum ofabsolute Momentumvalues for a certain period, or averages of the same for several periods, etc. Various estimates range from 30\70 to 5\95. The SB's is 50/50.
Do a sampling among successful traders and among those who are losing on martingale and compare the statistics.
So what? We all have to prove to you on this forum that martin is a sinker?I do not have that kind of data to correlate traders who use martingale profitable and losers. I think you also do not have it, because there is nowhere to take it even employees of brokerage companies, traders do not broadcast the data on the use of a particular strategy at any given time and trying to compare without such data makes no sense.
I asked for statistical proof and apart from youtube video, emotion, rhetoric and fictional storytelling I heard nothing. My conclusions are quite different. If you want to argue then please prove by all the rules of scientific argument about the truth, without subterfuge and demagogy ("...owe you all forums...") I take such rhetoric as noise, sorry.
What will you do if I prove that martingale is at least inefficient?
I will personally thank you, I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Proof should be scientific, not rhetorical.
I am a bit busy at the moment, but as soon as I am free I will try to substantiate my point of view substantially as well.
The thesis:Martingale may be the best choice of MM, in the rather broad context of the flat strategy space.
I will prove it on the basis of the fact that there is a flat, and in a flat it is profitable to use Martingale with a certain ratio of the exponent not necessarily static equal to 2, depending on the maximum number of losing trades in the strategy in testing.
For example, I have a dynamic exponent coefficient and it is compressed depending on approaching the maximum amount of losing trades in tests. But it doesn't matter as long as the reflexive system correctly detects the trend/flat boundary. In a trend the exponent is lower than 1 on a loss is higher on a profit, while on a flat it is vice versa.
I will personally thank you, I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Proof should be scientific, not rhetorical.
I am a bit busy at the moment, but as soon as I am free I will try to substantiate my point of view substantially.
The thesis:Martingale may be the best choice of MM, in the rather broad context of the flat strategy space.
Prove I will based on the fact that there is a flat, and on the flat favorable to use Martingale with a certain ratio of the exponent, not necessarily a static equal to 2, depending on the maximum number of losing trades in the strategy in testing.
For example, I have a dynamic exponent coefficient and it is compressed depending on approaching the maximum amount of losing trades in tests. But it doesn't matter as long as the reflexive system correctly detects the trend/flat boundary. In a trend the exponent is lower than 1 on a loss is higher on a profit, while on a flat it is vice versa.
I, too, can formally prove to you and prove on any examples (real, not synthetic) the meaninglessness and even obvious absurdity of martingale, and there is no real use for it, not related to fraud or ignorance. But I won't try to show it for free. If you are interested, please contact me in person, I can explain for fifty euros.
Above have already expressed the correct thoughts about the mathematical interpretation of risk as an inverse multiplier for the TOTAL DEPOSIT in the case of classical martin. Very strange that it cannot be understood.
What the hell "smooth equity" ????. It is until a series of losing trades, which 100% will happen sooner or later, "sooner or later" = within 1-2 months. Up to that point, martin does not play any role.
ZZY Dynamic exponent is not a Martin, do not confuse a curve with a finger. A martin has an exponent of 2, in "soft" options may be less, but within (1-2) constant and in no case less than 1.
If you are going to prove it, prove it without conditional exponents and other chemistry, the topic is about classic martin.