Gorgeous Uncle Martin Gale - The Thorny Road to Millions or Total Collapse ! - page 4
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
What is the size of the deposit? If it's less than $1000, it's not interesting... And it means that you don't believe Martin, although you defend him.
What is the 2 percent rule?
I'm going to aim for an initial deposit of 100 quid for now,
Well, it just goes to show that you don't trust martin yourself... 100 quid is easy and easy to throw away, skip, lose... If you think martingale is a winning system - bet as much as you would not want to lose, which means at least $1000, unless you live in Moscow. Well, in the capital and it is not money - there a deposit must be put down $10000.
With such a deposit you will be much more careful with words about "martingale - the way to millions". As long as you have a micro deposit - it's no different from a lottery ticket.
Well, it just goes to show that you don't trust martin yourself... 100 quid is easy and easy to throw away, skip, lose... If you think martingale is a winning system - bet as much as you would not want to lose, which means at least $1000, unless you live in Moscow. Well, in the capital and it is not money - there a deposit must be put down $10000.
With such a deposit you will be much more careful with words about "martingale - the way to millions". As long as you have a micro deposit - it's no different than a lottery ticket.
I don't trust any new, untested expert whether they use martin or not. As far as I'm concerned, everyone knows it's not recommended to drive a new car at high speed. Although I don't see the difference in profitability: 1 initial deposit of 1000$ or 10 deposits of 100$.
I live alone and in the country, so my expenses are not high. I support the idea of earning with martin, as my practical experience has not yet disproved it. When one considers whether a Martin can earn or not, one should take into account the following paradox: if 1000 Expert Advisors with a Martin lose a deposit, it is not a proof that the Martin is evil, if there is at least one Expert Advisor with a Martin that brings profit. As a rule, everyone who has tried to earn on a Martin and failed, blames it on a Martin and trumpets it in all forums. They have no other choice, they are not going to say it is because they are born talentless. And such people are the majority. That is why Martin has such a bad reputation. And those people who successfully make money on it, as a rule, keep quiet. For example, I know one guy who does not have his present job and lives solely by earning with the help of Expert Advisors that use martin. I am not sure how much he has earned on the market and how much he has earned on the Forex market.
I live alone and in the provinces, so my level of expenditure is low.
So, $1000. Just a serious enough sum for the province and just a proof that the man trusts his TS.
And I support the idea of earning with martin because my practical experience has not yet disproved it.
And you don't take theoretical studies into account? There - on Wikipedia quite a normal explanation. On Lurkmore, it's more colorful, but it's also good.
When one considers whether a Martin can make money or not, one must take into account the following paradox: if 1000 EAs with a Martin are losing the deposit, that is not a proof that the Martin is evil, if there is at least one Expert Advisor with a Martin that is profitable.
But this is proof of the very high probability that the next martin will lose the deposit.
Realistically, if an Expert Advisor has a noticeable positive mathematical expectation - it does not need a Martin. If not, it will lose a profit. That's exactly because a Martin does not change the total expected payoff, it only changes some of its characteristics.
For example, I know someone who has no main job and lives only by earning money using Expert Advisors that use a Martin. He almost never appears on this forum and certainly does not trumpet his successes.
Well, let him tell you about his successes! You will start monitoring with $1000 and will earn very good money. By showing on the forum that it is possible.
Personally, I think that if it is true, and the man really earns - he could earn the same if there was no martin in the EA.
Well, that's $1000. This is quite a serious amount for the province, and it proves that the person trusts his or her TS.
Don't you take theoretical studies into account? There's a perfectly good explanation on Wikipedia. On Lurkmore it's more colorful, but it's also good.
But this is the proof of a very high probability that the next martin will lose the deposit.
If an Expert Advisor has a noticeable positive mathematical expectation, it does not need a Martin. If not, it will lose a profit. That's because a Martin does not change the total expected pay off but only changes some of its characteristics.
Well, let him tell you about his successes, you'll open monitoring with $1000 and will earn very good money. By showing on the forum that it is possible.
Personally, I think that if it's true and the man really earns - he could earn the same if there was no martin in advisors.
Martin is rarely used in its bare form. Usually martin + tehanalysis is used. It is not possible to account for all the different uses of technical analysis in such studies.
I have a change.
He told me about his successes as it is, but he doesn't have to hand out his EAs. You give out your EAs for free to everyone?
Martin is rarely used in its bare form. Usually Martin+technical analysis is used. It is not possible to account for all the different uses of technical analysis in such studies.
I have a change.
He told me about his successes as it is, but he doesn't have to give out his EAs. Do you give your EAs for free to everyone?
Why should I give them away? It's enough to show success.
And about "we usually use martin + the analysis": I'm just saying that the martin is not needed when the analysis is correct. And if we have more than a hundred trades, there will be no difference with or without martin.
But, of course, if there are doubts - go ahead, even the analysis is not needed, enter on a coin, and martin will earn us money. There are conditions under which a Martin with entries on a coin for life will never sell out. Only no one likes these conditions - the deposit is too big.
George Merts
, 2015.09.14 16:46Well, that's what I'm saying, where the analysis is correct, you don't need a martin
I wonder where it is the correct thechanalysis ? Over 90% of advisors and traders are losing money. Tell them where to get the correct technical analysis. Do you have one? And martin can pull a losing trade to the plus."
And martingale can pull a losing trade to the upside.
One. Two. Three. But a dozen, I'm already in doubt. A hundred - I'm pretty sure the result will be a loss. Now figure out how many trades you're going to make, and how many of them will be losing.
We are talking about using martingale in trading, not pulling out a couple or three trades.
Anyway, go for it. Tell me later how the martingale helped you.