Gorgeous Uncle Martin Gale - The Thorny Road to Millions or Total Collapse ! - page 10
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
Petros -- show me 5% per month -- bullshit question.
you have several signals now, the oldest is 3 weeks old -- there were signals before that -- where are they? have they gone?
you show 5% a month first -- then tell me you can show it.
right now -- your signals show you don't know how to do 5% a month
Firstly, my signals have not gone anywhere, they are in the archive:
And secondly, I have no intention of showing 5% per month.
First of all, my signals haven't gone anywhere, they're in the archive:
And secondly, I have no intention of showing 5% per month.
What you have shown is not the point.
the total value of the signals is calculated based on the balance -- and you need funds.
You may have a balance of 3000% a month -- but you may have funds up your uncle's ass.
besides, it's not just one or two accounts that count -- it's the total performance of all the accounts over a period of time.
for one account may be a huge profit -- but for all accounts it adds up to a super loss.
p.s. if the signal was available for viewing, and now it is turned off and in the archive - it means there is nothing to show on the signal
What you've shown doesn't tell you anything.
Total signals are based on balance sheets -- but you need funds.
The balance may be 3000% a month -- but the funds may be up your uncle's ass.
besides, it's not just one or two accounts that count -- it's the total performance of all the accounts over a period of time.
one account may be a huge gain -- all accounts totaled super loss.
I accept whatever is reasonable, whether it's profitable for me or not. If it's reasonable, it's profitable.
For the sake of self-deception. There is no incentive to show something.
If this resource would organize such a contest:
For example: For 3 or 6 months to show signals on real accounts, and the winner is the one who has a profit of at least 5% per month, and the maximum drawdown of no more than 10%.
Not only me, but a lot of people would be happy to participate.
Why are you attacking the man? He doesn't want to earn 5% a month - that's his right. )
I accept whatever is reasonable, whether it is beneficial to me or not. If it is reasonable, then it is profitable !
For the sake of what self-deception. There is no incentive to show something.
If this resource would organize such a contest:
For example: For 3 or 6 months to show signals on real accounts, and the winner is the one who has a profit of at least 5% per month, and the maximum drawdown of no more than 10%.
Not only me, but many of them would be glad to take part.
And what is the approximate maximum annual drawdown on this your strategy? )) Think about it carefully.
Depending on your answer the next question will be.
- So actually 5% per month at what maximum drawdown? Exactly at 10%?
Or
- And what prevents you from increasing the risks and earning many times more without losing stability? The lack of liquidity? Not enough leverage? ))
=========
Man, it's just so ridiculously self-contradictory. So confidently)
- So actually 5% per month at what maximum drawdown? Exactly at 10%?
Or
- And what prevents you from increasing the risks and earning many times more without losing stability? No liquidity? Not enough leverage? ))
Why do you ask such tricky questions?
You are undermining the basic postulates with your questions.
There is a simple known axiom -- 10% and 5% monthly drawdowns are orders of magnitude worse than 20% and 10% monthly drawdowns -- which is even worse than 50% and 25% monthly drawdowns.
And as an axiom -- it is considered true without requiring proof and is actively used by all experts to deduce and prove all subsequent assertions.
And what is the approximate maximum annual drawdown of this strategy of yours?
It depends on profitability. If profitability is between 60-100% per year, the maximum drawdown is ~10%.
As profitability increases, the drawdown percentage increases accordingly.
All this you can see with the robot in the tester, how the drawdown changes when we change the profitability.
Before you write anything I advise you to think long and hard. My trading experience is not theory in the air, but real trading practice.
It depends on profitability. If profitability is between 60-100% per year, the maximum drawdown is ~10%.
As profitability increases, the drawdown percentage increases accordingly.
All this you can see with the robot in the tester how the drawdown changes when we change the profitability.
Before you write anything I advise you to think long and hard. I don't have theory in the air, but real trading practice.
No-no. 5% in a month with a 10% drawdown is rubbish. And 60-100% per year with a 10% drawdown - it's a candy. Seems to be the same, but in fact 2 cardinally different things))). It's weird, isn't it? First you say rubbish, then you say candy))
The second question- What prevents to increase risks and earn many times more, without losing stability? No liquidity? Short of shoulders? )) This is only one of two things, because the margin of risk is sufficient - this has been solved))))
Why 5% is not a problem, but, say, 20 is?
Why do you ask such tricky questions?
You are undermining the basic postulates with your questions.
There is a simple and well-known axiom -- 10% and 5% drawdown per month -- is orders of magnitude worse than 20% and 10% drawdown per month -- which is even worse than 50% and 25% drawdown per month.
And as an axiom -- it is considered true without requiring proof and is actively used by all experts to deduce and prove all subsequent assertions.
Second question- What prevents you from increasing your risks and earning times more without losing stability?