"The 'perfect' trading system - page 15
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
No, it doesn't. Looking at your equity chart, it doesn't. Maybe with a different chart, it would. But it doesn't.
You can twist the earth around the sun, you can twist the sun around the earth. You can manage profit, you can manage loss. Very often in our research, we forget that the goal is the same - to make money, i.e. to make a profit. And if there is no profit, it means there is something wrong, it means we made a mistake somewhere. And if you write that the profit is not interested - then what is it all for? Research for research's sake?
Ok, I'll correct myself: an "ideal" trading system manages losses in order to maximize profits.
Victor, I don't have time to go into the intricacies of this code and pull out the supposed OTT principles from there. Do you have any clearer and clearer tutorial on OTT, which you don't feel sorry to post? If you do, tell me it's your personal know-how, which you won't give away.
If you want to be understood and supported, you're just doomed to show what OTT is - in its basic principles, not in its specific implementation.
I don't need to be understood and supported - I am self-sufficient.
However, I'm not greedy and I understand perfectly well that even if all traders use OTT and adaptive EA clones, I will not get poorer from this - besides PAMM we have plenty of other projects.
There is no OTT manual yet. I have only just finished the newsletter on adaptive EA, i.e. there is no well-structured material on OTT.
And I don't know if there will be one or not - no need to write one yet.
I can answer questions if there are any. It's pretty straightforward, really.
OK, I stand corrected: An "ideal" trading system manages losses to maximise profits
to DC2008 But let's assume I have no losses, what should I manage now or is my system not perfect after that ???
No, it doesn't. Looking at your equity chart, it doesn't. Maybe with a different chart, it would. But it doesn't.
>> yeah, it doesn't, it's 15 pages long :)
You know, the deeper you go down, the more elusive this opportunity seems....... Unfortunately, but it is - as more and more percentages need to be earned of the remaining capital while maintaining your MM in order to get at least to zero.....
In general, for example, according to the experience of many traders, at a loss of up to 30% - to recover is realistic, at a loss of 50% - to recover is very difficult, at a loss of 70% - to recover is almost unreal....
Yeah, it doesn't catch on - 15 pages have already been written :)
15 pages isn't because it catches on, it's to reassure you that everyone is primarily interested in profit, even if the equity line isn't very smooth. ))))
You know, the deeper you go down, the more elusive this opportunity seems....... Unfortunately, but it is - as more and more percentages need to be earned of the remaining capital while maintaining your MM in order to get at least to zero.....
In general, for example, according to the experience of many traders, at a loss of up to 30% - to recover is real, at a loss of 50% - to recover is very difficult, at a loss of 70% - to recover is almost unreal....
This is in the realm of trader myths - you just have to count in pips instead of percentages and then everything falls into place.That's a trader's myth - you just need to measure in pips and not in percentages and then everything falls into place.
It's not a myth - it's a harsh reality, as long as you keep the MM within 1:5 leverage and not play the casino game called forex luck or no luck.....
15 pages, not because it's catchy, but to reassure you that everyone is primarily interested in profit, even if the equity line isn't very smooth. ))))
"Profit is nothing" - and then it goes on for 15 pages :)
It is not only losses that can be managed.
But in essence - the slogan all the same is correct. It's just that not everyone wants to look for it (the essence) - laziness was born ahead of people.