Gorgeous Uncle Martin Gale - The Thorny Road to Millions or Total Collapse !

New comment
 
Not so long ago I started using Martin Gale's principle in all its glory and grandeur. It turns out that a 1000$ cent account may yield good profits (with the right approach). The principle is simple: we wait for a pullback from a minimum or a maximum of 300 to 500 points and enter the market with a 0.01 s.l. volume of 100 points (200 points). When the moon reaches the s.l., we start good old Martin (who is always ready to help us out of the pit) and again enter with 0.02 and go on winning. And if it doesn't go, it will have to go without pulling back 1500 points, which is, I repeat, very unlikely. I don't deny the risk is always there, you don't want to take a risk, don't enter the market and your capital will be saved with a 100% guarantee. (Of course, besides force majeure situations).
 
1000 dollars or cents? If cents, it's a quick sell, if it's $1,000 (100,000 cents), the profit isn't very decent.
 
Martingale is the transfer of frequent small losses to a zone of large and rare losses. The only way to make money with it is to stop using it in time. Before that biggest and rarest loss occurs. And if you continue to use martingale - sooner or later this largest and rarest loss will come, and it will be worth all the small ones. The result is always the same - a total loss of the deposit.
 
Pulat Rikhsibaev:
Not so long ago I started using Martin Gale's principle in all its glory and grandeur. It turns out that a 1000$ cent account may yield good profits (with the right approach). The principle is simple: we wait for a pullback from a minimum or a maximum of 300 to 500 points and enter the market with a 0.01 s.l. volume of 100 points (200 points). When the moon reaches the s.l., we start good old Martin (who is always ready to help us out of the pit) and again enter with 0.02 and go on winning. And if it doesn't go, it will have to go without pulling back 1500 points, which is, I repeat, very unlikely. I don't deny the risk is always there, you don't want to take a risk, don't enter the market and your capital will be saved with a 100% guarantee. (Of course, besides force majeure situations).
Martin is a way to ruin. You just increase the risk and the profit remains unchanged.
 
Evgeny Belyaev:
Martin is a path to ruin. You just increase the risks and the profits remain unchanged.
If using martin to double the initial deposit every month, and losses over the year for example two initial deposits, then it is almost a grail. Now try to disprove that this cannot be. If you cannot, do not criticize the Expert Advisors with martin. If an EA with martin is a low-yielding one, then, yes, it is difficult to profit from periodic losses. But a high-yielding one will justify periodic losses many times over.
 

Martin is defended only by those who cannot trade properly or write proper Expert Advisors.

Well, freelancers and representatives of DCs of course )), but they do not count.

 
Комбинатор:

Martin is defended only by those who cannot trade properly or write proper Expert Advisors.

Well, freelancers and representatives of DCs of course )), but they do not count.

There is no problem in writing a good EA. Even if a person is not able to do it, he can ask someone who is. The problem is to find a profitable strategy. Although, finding a profitable strategy for a programmer who knows how to program, of course, is much easier.
 


"The Magnificent Uncle Martin Gale - The Thorny Road to Millions or Total Collapse!"

That's how it works out for everyone. Some go bankrupt and some make money. To each his own ability, as in any business.

 
khorosh:
If using a martin to double the initial deposit every month, and losses over the year for example two initial deposits, then it is almost a grail. Now try to disprove that this cannot be. If you cannot, do not criticize the Expert Advisors with martin. If an EA with martin is a low-yielding one, then, yes, it is difficult to profit from periodic losses. But a high-yielding one will justify periodic losses many times over.
Martin may drain up to doubling the deposit. If you have a profitable, stable strategy, why do you need martin? Martingale can kill even a profitable strategy, because the risks are constantly overestimated.
 
Evgeny Belyaev:
Martins can also drain you before doubling your deposit. If you have a profitable, stable strategy, why do you need a martin? Martingale can kill even a profitable strategy because the risks are constantly inflated.

So what? Maybe you lose and then make five lost deposits.

I achieve stability precisely due to martin. Without martin a series of orders comes out in profit less often. And at the expense of what are the risks always exaggerated?

Of course, if there is a profitable strategy without Martin and moreover it has a higher profitability than with Martin, then as they say, Godspeed.

 
khorosh:

So what? Maybe you lose and then make five lost deposits.

I achieve stability precisely due to martin. Without martin a series of orders comes out in profit less often. And at the expense of what are the risks always exaggerated?

Of course, if there is a profitable strategy without Martin and moreover having higher profitability than with Martin, then, as they say, Godspeed to you.

If you calculate the profit in points, not in money, then you will understand why the risks are exaggerated.
12345678910111213
New comment