Repetitive patterns and other patterns - page 33
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
Yeah. They're perfect. Hands in the wrong place.
$50 bonus to whoever proves that last part wrong. I'm talking about the branch you know.
So far, it's all silent and nothing but chatter and demands for dough.
Either an admission of defeat and a $50 bonus or proof that the proof is wrong.
What's there to refute... The grounds are wrong. Capital is not infinite, the cumulative probability for a couple of months, a series of consecutive >7 losing trades is close to 100%. The exponential risk growth function is absurd.
The only sense of martin is pseudo-modulation of the equity curve, so that it sort of tends to a linear form, it is only possible as a simulation, in the absence of a mergencole. A normal MM should protect the dough from risk, not the other way around.
JMA signals are better than EMA signals, but both are not even close to ideal.
Yeah. They're perfect. Hands in the wrong place.
$50 bonus to whoever proves that last part wrong. I'm talking about the branch you know.
So far, it's all silent and nothing but chanting and demanding money.
Either an admission of defeat and a $50 bonus or proof that the proof is wrong.
It was an interesting read, but unfortunately not for long. In a word, a classic.
It smacks of Vince and his mathematics in trading.
Once again, I should point out that for me the two different things are investing and running up the deposit 100-1000 times.
In such cases, the maths is different, respectively.
It was an interesting read, but unfortunately not for long. In a word, a classic.
It smacks of Vince and his mathematics in trading.
Once again, I should point out that for me the two different things are investing and running up the deposit 100-1000 times.
In such cases, the maths is different, respectively.
What's there to refute... The grounds are wrong. Capital is not infinite, the cumulative probability over a couple of months, of a series of >7 consecutive losing trades is close to 100%. The exponential risk growth function is absurd.
The only sense of martin is pseudo-modulation of the equity curve, so that it sort of tends to a linear form, it is only possible as a simulation, in the absence of a mergencole. A normal MM should protect the dough from risk, not the other way around.
How do you want to prove it, they are both loss-makers?)
MACDs are not unprofitable, but they are sub-spread if not filtered. Can you prove, for example, that the TRIX signal or a common stochastic has a higher MOI?
Dear Sir, if you operate with serious mathematical syllings, provide a proof in a more classical form, not using empty single-type phrases, but a more serious mathematical basis.
Since you are a proven fool, you should use the service only after the prepayment.
Do you think that such a dumbass translation of the topic from a completely baseless claim that JMA macdac is the best oscillator, to that martingale is the best MM, no one noticed??? Laughs and sins...
You want to be cooler than Lordalve with his 30 KU grail.
MACDs are not unprofitable, but they are sub-spread if not filtered. Can you prove, for example, that TRIX or banal stochastic signals have a higher MOS?
MACDs are not unprofitable, but they are sub-spread if not filtered. Can you prove, for example, that the TRIX signal or a common stochastic has a higher MOI?
Since you are a proven fool, you should use the service only after the prepayment.
Do you think that such a dumbass translation of the topic from a completely baseless claim that JMA macdac is the best oscillator, to that martingale is the best MM, no one noticed??? Laughs and sins...
You want to be better than Lordalve with his 30 KU grail.
I've already written in the beginning of acquaintance with you, that I'm writing my codes for myself and for no one and I don't see the point in writing senseless codes even for 30 bucks, if they don't have any serious constructive content.
I don't see the point in writing senseless codes, even if they don't have any constructive content. You may use any of them. All of them are secondary.
They show the past state of the market, when it has already formed and is of no interest.
Read carefully.
Truly a fisherman fishes from afar.