Martingale is not evil at all, it brings profits - page 5
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 outcome of a particular trade is not determined by previous trades - simply because it is not just a property of the strategy, but also of the market. Hopes that the probability of success of a given trade somehow depends on account history are illusory. A person who persists in this delusion demonstrates a lack of understanding of the very spirit of probability/statistics theory. The forum has repeatedly cited the example of flipping a correct coin: the probability of an eagle in the next trial is exactly 0.5, no matter how many times the eagle has fallen immediately before (even a thousand times in a row).
Then the probability that the eagle will follow the eagle again is only as good as the method.
The outcome of a particular trade is not determined by previous trades - simply because it is not just a property of the strategy, but also of the market. The hope that the probability of success of a given trade somehow depends on account history is elusive. A person who persists in this delusion demonstrates a lack of understanding of the very spirit of probability theory/statistics. The forum repeatedly cited the example of flipping a correct coin: the probability of an eagle in the next trial is exactly 0.5, regardless of how many times the eagle fell directly before that (even a thousand times in a row).
, then the probability of eagle being followed by eagle again is only as good as the method.
This reasoning is wrong.
The market is certainly not random, but the market development does not depend on the trading history of an individual account. Therefore, the trades history cannot be considered as a criterion either for determining the direction or value of new trades (or rather, it can be considered, but this consideration will not lead to a positive result).
As far as I understand, you are proceeding from the fact that "eagles" must be short, almost in pips. Indeed, if you open with short targets on a trend, then you will get a lot of positive trades within the trend and, like, the further you go, the bigger and more expensive.
However, the strategy has to "catch" this trend and hold the trade until the opposite signal appears - the trading criterion is triggered. Otherwise, there is simply no reason to close. With this order of trading, the fundamental positive aspect of the technology is trading from signal to signal.
The error in your reasoning is that the next eagle is considered after the previous eagle has been closed and, moreover, it has been closed not due to a trade criterion but due to non-trade reasons, for example stop=20p. Normally, in this situation, we should consider the trade criterion. And if it calls for "eagle", then bet on "eagle". But it is wrong to take into account what happened to the previous "eagle".
Maximum number of
continuous wins (profit) 20 (6036.85)
continuous losses (loss) 2 (-7146.80)
Maximum
Continuous Profit (number of wins) 8252.00 (6)
Continuous loss (number of losses) -7146.80 (2)
Average
continuous winnings 5
continuous loss 1
I write EAs instead of reasoning - here is a forwardtest of an EA with a martingale 100 trades on the plot
optimization the rest on non-optimized. The result is due to the high ratio of 5 to 1 profitable trades. No pips as you can see.
It's a bit of a shame...
I want what's best. Just, in a friendly way, to clarify the true situation a little bit. And there's such a severe misunderstanding. "Me instead of reasoning..." is totally wrong.
Okay. Let's get to it.
Wonderful counselor. The angle of slope of the main line is remarkable in it.
And as for the martingale, let's take a closer look. Whenever there is a significant positive deviation from the main line, it is followed by a return. The balance chart you presented is just a clear indication that martingale does not lead to better results.
The martingale could (eventually wrongly anyway) be considered useful if the graph did not return to the main line, but continued its development at the speed of the main line, but from the point (at the top of the slide) that was reached as a result of the martingale. But that does not happen. It is just the opposite. And you can clearly see the increased (martingale) volumes of trades on the descent (during the loss period) of each local slide.
You don't want to hear my reasoning, that's up to you. But in this case I assure you, if you take the martingail out of the EA, keeping the trade criteria, the economical result will not change, but the EA will become more stable. Specifically, the drawdown rates will decrease. And this is an important positive feature for an EA pretending to use in real trading.
The outcome of a particular trade is not determined by previous trades - simply because it's not just a property of the strategy, it's also a property of the market. The hope that the probability of success of a given trade somehow depends on the account history is illusory. A person who persists in this delusion demonstrates a lack of understanding of the very spirit of probability/statistics theory. The forum has repeatedly cited the example of flipping a correct coin: the probability of an eagle in the next trial is exactly 0.5, no matter how many times the eagle has fallen directly before (even a thousand times in a row).
The probability that after "eagle" there will be "eagle" again increases as far as the method is good.
I partly agree. The market is not a coin. It has a memory, unlike a coin. A trader's account is one way of storing information about the behaviour of not only the trader, but also the market. Martingale in forex, in contrast to "eagle", is not only a MM, as has been repeatedly stated here, it is also an attempt to use the market memory assuming "conservatism" of price (see, for example, this old article - the probability of change of a candle colour is higher than the probability of its saving). But this is too simplistic an approach, and I'm against martingale in its pure form.
P.S. While there is a link to my old Expert Advisor, I feel obliged to warn - it is not written for real trading.
FION, I gave a link to a thread just above where there was a link to my example with 12-13 losing trades in a row and martingale. Please tell me, is such an example really that unbelievable?
Oh nerds, you are out of touch with life. Here is the backtest of a modified MoneyRain, i.e. a modern maringale. Please note the number of continuous losses.
Full backtest in the attached archive
At the opening prices on the clock?:))
It's like drawing a straight road on a map. And in reality there are mountains.
After all, no one is saying that illusions are easy to part with.
New knowledge penetrates the consciousness somewhat easier if backed by a concrete plummet in the real world.
For this purpose, martingale is a perfectly acceptable, reliable way to develop.
The outcome of a particular trade is not determined by previous trades - simply because it is not just a property of the strategy, but also of the market. The hope that the probability of success of a given trade somehow depends on account history is elusive. A person who persists in this delusion demonstrates a lack of understanding of the very spirit of probability/statistics theory. The forum has repeatedly cited the example of flipping a right coin: the probability of an eagle in the next trial is exactly 0.5, no matter how many times the eagle has fallen directly before (even a thousand times in a row).
Then the probability that after "eagle" there will be another "eagle" is only as good as the method.
One problem is the size of the deposit and large drawdowns - but it depends on how often and at what moments you flip a coin....