Why do signal and advisor sellers sell their products and not use them themselves? - page 3
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
The point is that you only sell a trading tool, but it's up to each person to decide how to use it. Hence the different results of trading with the same robot for different people .
One person gets an axe to cut down trees, the other one gets an axe to cut heads off.
You can draw an analogy with printed editions of various "secrets" of trading on financial markets... who writes them and for what/who...
In general, it's all rhetoric ...
I can only speak for myself - I am interested in development, not in trading in any form. Of course, I could sell my developments on the market and trade.
But I'm just not comfortable with it. Maybe it's not the right time...
A misconception, due to inert mindset. A simple example: a computer chess program beats the World Chess Champion. And it should be noted that chess is much more complex than FOREX.
That the trader has to think is correct, but at the stage of development of the robot. And then the robot should work, without the active intervention of a non-sensible trader.
Is it how you noticed that "chess is much more complicated than FOREX"?
and said it as an axiom, instead of, for example, "I believe ..."
here i'm sure it's just the opposite.
Chess has a finite number of squares (64), a finite number of pieces (32) and each move is limited to a finite number of variations and can only theoretically be played infinitely.
whereas in Forex everything is infinite (I think no two daily candlesticks are the same), and not, as some people think, that you have to choose only one of two (buy or sell).
i will give my opinion about robots:
1) robots may be profitable, but only for a certain period of time. markets change (eg. if the euro passes 2,000 pips in a day, most would say "what a move!" whereas 3-5 years ago, it was a normal day), etc.
2) trying to make a robot that will do 100% a month is too risky.
3) those who write robots don't have much money.
4) saying "robot makes 10% a month" is not quite right, it's better to say "robot makes 10% a month and a chance of losing 1 a year". --- i.e. there are always risks no matter how the robot is written
Conclusion. If I wrote a robot that generates an average of 5-8% a month, why don't I sell it?
if they buy 1000 copies for 30$ that's 30k minus commission, on the other hand i may launch a robot for 100$ and wait years for the money.
Is that how you noticed that "chess is much more complicated than FOREX"?
and said it as an axiom, instead of, for example, "I believe..."
here i'm sure it's just the opposite.
Chess has a finite number of squares (64), a finite number of pieces (32) and each move is limited to a finite number of variations and can only theoretically be played infinitely.
while in Forex everything is infinite (I think no two daily candlesticks are the same), and not, as some people think, that you have to choose only one of two (buy or sell).
Firstly, no one will sell you a grail, even if it were, you can only be sold a basic component of a grail strategy.
Secondly, the grail is a strategy consisting of a set of (useful and necessary) indicators, and not robots, which is accompanied by trader experience (that is, a person should at least take a basic training and trade for at least 1 month without leaving the computer to understand what can happen in forex).
If you want to earn 5% a month and not a year in Forex, you have nothing to catch, you better go to your uncle's job or go to the bank and pay interests on your money.
1. they can sell a minor component of some sort of graphical strategy. if it is really a GRAAL, then no one will sell its core, the heart of the strategy.
2. "Second, a grail is a strategy composed of many (useful and useful) indicators, not robots. This is not clear. Why the division? robot is just an automaton, while it can trade on the same "useful" and "useful" indicators and it may be written based on trader's experience...
3. I wouldn't make such a categorical statement about the market either... You'd better go to work for a man or put your money in a bank for a %. 3.
This is what my trading robot likes to think about.
How should I explain why signal sellers and Expert Advisors sell their products and not use them myself?
gontaras, 2014.04.19 02:05
Is that how you noticed that "chess is much more complicated than FOREX"?
and said it as an axiom, instead of, for example, "i believe ..."
I'm pretty sure it's just the opposite.
i think chess is much more difficult. why?
This is because in chess there is a linear correlation between the complexity of the strategy and the result, whereas in forex and trading in general there is no such correlation.
If success in forex were determined by discovering all of its "complexity", then goggle-eyed mathematicians would have already bent the market and cranked it up a long time ago.
The fact is that most of this complex system is not determined in principle, otherwise various neural networks and the like would work like clockwork.
If success in forex were determined by discovering all of its "complexity", the goggle-eyed mathematicians would have bent the market and bent it out of shape a long time ago.
Any problem can be solved, but the condition of the problem must be formulated correctly.
As the saying goes: "A correctly formulated problem already contains half of its solution.
...
I think chess is much harder. Why?
It's because in chess there is a linear relationship between the complexity of the strategy and the result, but in Forex and trading in general, there is no such relationship.
If success in forex was determined by unlocking all of its "complexity" then goggle-eyed mathematicians would have bent the market a long time ago and fucked it out.
The fact is that most of this complex system is not determined in principle, otherwise various neural networks and the like would work like clockwork.
Guys, don't compare the green and the warm. Who says that in chess there is a linear correlation between the "complexity of strategy" and the result? How do you measure "complexity of strategy"?
And who says that linear dependencies are more complex than non-linear ones (which you do not see in trading)? Solve any SLAU and then 4th order DU, then tell me what was easier.
"Complexity" shouldn't be interpreted as a subjective value... For you one process is difficult, for others it is easy.
As a rule, "goggle-eyed mathematicians" are not tasked to "bend the market"... There are more specific research objectives and goals.
The only difference is that in chess you can at least sometimes control the situation... but the market - you have no control.
You get the feeling that unsuccessful chessplayers went to trade on Forex, because it's easier...
elugovoy:
In chess, you can control the situation sometimes... But in the market, you don't.And the market doesn't need to be controlled.
In chess:
You are left with a king, a knight and a rook, and your opponent has one king.
It would seem that you are in control. But you can ruin it, too, if you want to.
In the market, you can also control the situation when, for example, your profitable position is protected by a trailing stop. But it can also be screwed up.
One gets the feeling that failed chess players have gone out to trade on Forex because it's easier...
...they already have structured logical thinking...
Sorry, by that you mean effective strategy making for algorithmic trading or for fundamental trading?