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
If the trader plays the system, it is really better to invest on failures, because a series of profitable trades is followed by a series of losing trades, and the more losing trades, the more likely profitable ones are. There is even a strategy to increase lot volume after a series of losing trades (not to be confused with martin). With every losing trade the probability of a profitable one increases. According to this logic, when the trader's equity grows, he/she should withdraw funds :))) and deposit them again :))
Do you have a mathematical proof of these assertions? What makes you think that a series of profitable trades should be followed by a series of losing ones?
Well, why... :-)
I was filling up on the drawdown, because the roll was once a day, so the money came right out of the drawdown.
So, all is well here - we buy the bottoms, sell the tops - the system is a counter-trend system... :-)
If the trend has begun, it will continue ... :-)
Well, according to your picture, that's exactly what happened ))))
You poured in on a local drawdown, hoping it would be global. And it turned out to be a local one. And you got out by the global drawdown. )))
Do you have any mathematical proof of these claims? What makes you think that a series of profitable trades should be followed by a series of losing trades?
No. This is not a statement, but a theoretical assumption as stated in Larry Williams' "The Long-Term Secrets of Short-Term Trading".
Here, by the way, we as investors face the same problem as traders - investing at the highs and exiting at the lows, when it should be the other way round.
How do we avoid this problem?
Do you have any mathematical proof of these claims? What makes you think that a succession of profitable trades should be followed by a succession of losing trades?
I guess it's about the same as the sun after the rain.
That's what I wrote - investing in an obscure manager on the basis of equity alone carries, as it turns out, great non-trading risks.....))))
no. This is not a statement, but a theoretical assumption as stated in Larry Williams "The Long-Term Secrets of Short-Term Trading"
A fan myself of Larry Williams and all his books. But finding seriality is too nontrivial a task to be fully solved by the same Z-Score. Introduction of an additional submodel into the trading/investing model is fraught with danger, because it always introduces an additional degree of freedom for risk. The simplest example:
Great seriality isn't it? What if she's just part of a random process:
But that's not what the topic is about.Unfortunately or fortunately, there are no mathematical studies of this kind, so anything can be claimed in this regard and it may be true. Or maybe not.....))))
Well in that case, I'm either a genius or a madman, because I have such studies... No, more like a madman.