MTS = profit FALSE ||TRUE - page 8
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
With uniform distribution and constant frequency of opening at TP=SL probability = 50% ... Imagine an EA that opens two opposite positions with TP=SL, equal to half of weekly average delta for the last ten days, with an even probability.
Where do you see an even distribution in forex? It is in the casino, and not always.
Not on rael.... :)) Integer no! Don't run it on the real world by any means. :))
Well again....
Don't fight.
Somewhere I had a gif about a grail on a story hung on real...
A system with 98% of profitable trades can lose and great, while 52% can make sustained profits. Can lose both, etc. In general, the binary logic
00 - both systems lose
01 - the second one is profitable, etc.
....
You're stuck on the number, even though there is only one indisputable criterion and you all know it.
603-monkeys script:)
News from the 603 monkeys championship.
After a long and hard battle, there is one monkey left with ~600000 deposit. The overall championship balance is fluctuating around 100% +/- 5%.
In such a pore, it will hold for a long time, the plummet is unlikely, further increase in profit level is just as likely.
I have been trading with EAs since January 2006, i.e. over 2 years. At the moment I have 4 real accounts under management (small amounts). My success is like this: I do not lose.
The successful trader = a long time trader
Where do you see an even distribution in forex? It is even in the casino and not always.
:))
Where it is... ...I saw it evenly... Look closer, think about what I was saying, sorry, but I don't have much time, otherwise I'd explain it more clearly ... :)
A system that has 98% of profitable trades can lose and is great, while 52% can make sustained profits. Can lose both, etc. In general, the binary logic
00 - both systems lose
01 - the second one is profitable, etc.
....
You are clinging to a number, although there is only one indisputable criterion and you all know it.
You see what you want to see, while I'm talking about something else in this case, and ONLY about the % of profitable trades. And this is a clear and perhaps the only :) criterion for the success of the strategy ... This is only a criterion for evaluating a strategy. I am only talking about it, the simplest and most easily analyzed criterion. My view of the situation looks like this - money management is afterwards, first Strategy then MM, then fight with DC, then financial management strategy... But the basis is only the first - a strategy that gives the highest percentage... And my estimation as an expert is 98%... And it's achievable, believe me ... :))
In a word, everyone understands that even if the strategy gives 10% of successful trades with 100 times more profit than 90% of losing trades, there will be a profit... But do not kid yourself those 90% of losing trades you just shouldn't have made. That's all. In other words, they are not successful (won) just need to consider that they did not happen ... So a proper strategy is different in that it doesn't do things that need to be closed later minimizing losses, opening opposite orders to minimize drawdowns and so on.
You see what you want to see, while I'm talking in this case about something else, and ONLY about the % of profitable trades. And this is a clear and perhaps the only :) criterion for the success of a strategy ... This is only a criterion for evaluating a strategy. I am only talking about it, the simplest and most easily analyzed criterion. My view of the situation looks like this - money management is afterwards, first the strategy then MM, then fight with DC, then financial management strategy... But the basis is only the first - a strategy that gives the highest percentage... And my estimation as an expert is 98%... And it's achievable, believe me ... :))
In a word, it is clear to everyone that even if the strategy gives 10% of successful trades with a sum of profit 100 times greater than 90% of losing trades, there will be profit... But don't kid yourself about the 90% of losing trades you just shouldn't have made. That's all. In other words, they are not successful (won) just need to consider that they did not happen ... So the right strategy is different in that it does not do what you need to close later minimizing losses, opening opposite orders to minimize drawdowns, etc.
It's really bad with the guy....
It's not good with the guy at all....
:)) I'm sorry you don't get it... Then I hope someone else can explain it to you again... I'm sorry. :))