Looking for an MTS. giving a steady 20% or more per month - page 30
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
Exactly, the market favours, not the system works. Not a single losing trade is either an adjustment or a game without stops. In any system there must be losing trades and the system must be able to deal with them.
There is a mistake at the heart of it. If the system is really a system, there will be no losing trades, it is just that the trader will enter the market rarely, choosing the right moment. When I see a system where 1/3 of hundreds of trades are losing, then I can only say that I do not need such a system for nothing and I can easily substitute the denominator number. Or even if the system fails just once after a long run, it's better to throw it on the scrapheap.
Perhaps I will consider it, but a little later. The strategy is still being fine-tuned to its optimum. Increasing entry accuracy and decreasing risk.
Now I understand, why there was interest in copier :) . When you build the service, let me know :) .
Now I see why there was interest in the copier :) . When you build the service, let me know in private :) .
Actually I have a lot of interests, at the moment I'm choosing priority ones to implement.
If the system is a real system there will be no losing trades, a trader will just enter the market rarely, choosing the right moment.
I am striving for that myself, through more careful filtering of trades. However, I understand that it may take you a thousand years to get there, but you will never achieve the result. I would be satisfied with a small percentage of small losing trades.
If you think that one losing trade in a system is its failure or at least a failure, then you have some skew in your criteria for evaluating systems. Revise them. The main thing in the system is not the absence of losing trades (this can be very easily done by playing with microscopic lots and never fixing losses), but an acceptable financial output in a given time.
A large paper drawdown is an unacceptable solution, because it is a terrible waste of time. The grebec report is exactly the same case of concept switch: a paper drawdown of 58% is considered more acceptable than taking a small real loss.
HIDDEN - You're doing great!
P.S. Again I wondered what I was doing... ((
There is an error in the main point. If the system is really a system, there will be no losing trades,
If the system is really a system, there will be losing trades. That's how the market works. And the very task of creating a break-even system is fraught with time wasting and trampling in place.
Besides, what do you want from your system, a stable 500 points a month with losing trades or 100 points with no losing trades? The presence of losing trades is not a goal but one of the system's characteristics and you may want to set it as a goal, but you can't. The system has a lot of characteristics and each of them says a lot, but you pull out one of them and put it in front of everything else.
I'm looking for an MTS Giving 20% A MONTH STABILIZED, with the ability to reinvest every month.
To get such MTS write me here: 7www@inbox.ru icq 364-340-486.
There is an error in the main point. If the system is really a system, there will be no losing trades, just that the trader will enter the market rarely, choosing the right moment. When I see a system where 1/3 of hundreds of trades are losing, then I can only say that I do not need such a system for nothing and I can easily substitute the denominator number. Or, even if the system fails at least once after a long use, it is better to throw it on the scrapheap.
You're right!!! I've done very few trades and once opened, the deal wasn't in such a state for a long time: After reaching a certain positive result, exit the market... even though it's small, it's a plus without a minus!
i can compare it to a savings account in a bank, but not at 1-2% as it often happens, but at almost 20%!
that's a way out! And I'll add at the end:
THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING!)))
I am striving for this myself, by filtering deals more carefully. However, I understand that it may take you a thousand years to get there, but you will never achieve the result. I would be satisfied with a small percentage of small losing trades.
If you think that one losing trade in a system is its failure or at least a failure, then you have some bias in your system evaluation criteria. Reconsider them. The main thing in a system is not the absence of losing trades (you can easily do it by playing with microscopic lots and never fixing losses), but an acceptable financial output for a given time.
A large paper drawdown is an unacceptable solution, because it is a terrible waste of time. In grebec's report it is exactly the same case of a switch: a paper drawdown of 58% is considered more acceptable than accepting a small real loss.
So you're sort of backing me up?)
The presence of losses is not a goal but one of the characteristics of the system.
I'll join in. The system is entitled to losses if they are controlled, just as an organism is entitled to germs.
A lossless system is as suspicious to me as a sterile organism.