![MQL5 - Language of trade strategies built-in the MetaTrader 5 client terminal](https://c.mql5.com/i/registerlandings/logo-2.png)
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
And the turnover (number of subscriptions sold) is already on quality
This one https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/1218
well... without adjusting for sellability.... he's been selling mostly in the summer, maybe it's a system.
Reading the title of the topic again, I was reminded of the joke about violists (that's the musicians' chukchi):
Идешь по пустыне, видишь 2-х альтистов - один играет хорошо, а второй плохо, у какого попросишь воды?
The one that's bad. Because a violist who plays well is an illusion =)
So it is with signals - if the account is locked, it does not fit the category of "really profitable": either cheating (pipsing the demo), or random (in the future the curve turns over), or both of them together.
The price of the signal depends primarily on the customer. Let's say a client has 100 quid in his account. Signals cost 50 quid, profit per month is 20%. The recommended ratio is 100/0.01 lots. It turns out that a client will earn 20 rubles per month and pay 50 rubles for the signals. If a client has $10000 on his/her account, $50 will not make a difference.
That's my point exactly. It's easier to put those 100 quid into a PAMM. I would have thought it would be better to put that 100 bucks into a PAMM.
It is the same essence) Only the mechanism is different and much more transparent in signals!
Nah. The point is completely different.
PAMMs do not withdraw commission for losses, while signals do - it is bad for buyers.
In PAMMs commission is composed of percents, while in case of signals it is fixed - bad for sellers.
I wonder who is oriented on the service to satisfy both sides.
Nah. The point is completely different.
PAMMs do not withdraw commission for losses, while signals do - it is bad for buyers.
In PAMMs commission is composed of percents, while in case of signals it is fixed - bad for sellers.
I wonder who is oriented on the service to satisfy both sides.
The cost of the signal is less of a problem for the seller, and due to the n-th number of subscribers the cost of the signal may not be large, which is profitable for the subscriber!