Where to start? - page 19
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
For 6-12 months, there will be a number of trends in the market, which usually destroy any chaotically enabled EA.
You can start adjusting the duration of the term (https://www.mql5.com/ru/market/product/149).
You have one more try, otherwise what about your guarantees...
If you do not know what to do with the EA, you will get the error message, and you will not know what to do with it.We have already seen how long they work before they fail, or have a huge drawdown on the verge of failure.
When trying to argue and give guarantees, rely on the actions of professionals, not the signals of new traders trying to gain credibility.
A word of advice for the future - be careful about giving guarantees.
You can start to adjust the length of time ( https://www.mql5.com/ru/market/product/149 ).
You have one more try, otherwise what about your guarantees...
When trying to argue and give guarantees, rely on the actions of professionals, not the signals of new traders trying to gain credibility.
A word of advice for the future - be careful about giving guarantees.
What statistics can we talk about, for three years there were only 70 trades, it's ridiculous, and as far as I understand in such small parameters the drawdown was achieved 70%, and you believe that it was not on the verge of plum. Any investor stops trading, when reaching 20-30% drawdown.
You lack logic. We were talking about a period of break-even trading, and you're talking about the number of trades...
It's not nice to take the conversation away from the original topic.
You lack logic. You were talking about the break-even period, and you've turned to the number of trades...
It's not nice to divert the conversation away from the original topic.
We have not had any trade, we have had drawdowns in the exclusion zone, sorry, and therefore it cannot be called a "statistic" of a break-even trade.
Again, it's not the same thing - 4 years is not a statistic...? And the absence of at least one losing trade in 4 years is what?
Stop playing around, take back your guarantees, and reconsider your attitude to break-even trading!
There are again inconsistencies - 4 years is no longer a statistic...? And the absence of at least one losing trade in 4 years is what?
Stop playing around, take back your guarantees, and reconsider your attitude to break-even trading!
I don't change my opinions.
Purely theoretically ( I've always been very interested ): what would you like to hear ( figures, facts, trading period ... ) so that you change your attitude to "break-even trading" ?
P.S. I think you would be very surprised if you found out how easy (I would say primitive) these kinds of results are achieved.