"The 'perfect' trading system - page 40

New comment
 
Mischek писал(а) >>

No comment.

I see that any talk of a drain falls into the category of "annoying flubbing" ....))))

 
Pegasmaster >> :

In fact, nobody asked you to bring anything. This is purely your initiative.

Do you think your system is perfect? Prove it.

Why should anyone be interested in another leaky system?

You don't make any sense, do you?

Good luck in trading! I will follow your pam from time to time, nevertheless.

p.s. And what makes you think I'm waiting for something ready to be delivered to me? By the way, you have everything ready, you even have a patent.


I'm surprised myself - 40 pages have already been written here, and it all started with:

"At the link, lies an adaptive algorithm that satisfies your criteria:
1. ability to learn and adapt
2. only 1 optimizable parameter".

The criterion was announced and I just informed that the Adaptive EA meets this criterion.

I haven't said a word about profit and other characteristics :)

And who's talking here about someone else's illogic? :)

Looks like you just didn't read the thread first.

 
goldtrader >> :

Wrong ...

It is a problem of your investors, who believed in screenshots and OTT (General Theory of Trading), invested in PAMM.

They lost REAL money. After all, no one warned them that PAMM was created for experimentation.

And this is not my subjective opinion, but the opinion of investors on the branch of PAMM.


So it was not designed for experimentation - with your statement, you are simply misinforming the public, i.e. lying.
 
LeoV >> :

I see that any talk of a flush falls into the category of "annoying flubbing" ....))))


There are other sections of the forum for "plum talk" and all the rest.
 

Gah )

You too LeoV

 
Mischek >> :

Hee )

You, too, LeoV...

..Counting :))

 
yöklmnoprst.....))))
 
LeoV >> :
ecclmnoprst.....))))

All gone! :)

 

I have an epiphany...

Still don't understand who was trying to say what?


If there was a proper definition of an ideal system. Ooh then patent on the subject. ;)

But even trying to define wrong is a hollowed out attempt.

In any system there are (probably ;) its elements, the external environment, perturbations and the PURPOSE.

Setpoints or settings are the system's problem, but if the goal is not achieved or substituted...

What's the argument about?

What is the purpose of the trade?

Making a profit from the eggs? (c) Hodja Nasreddin.

Or is it profit?

And it would be worthwhile to read Slutsky and compare the cuts.

Here I agree with some.

 

and VictorArt has clearly answered Angela's (for me) incorrect question.

And if this kind of perfection is not to my liking (neither am I) the question is for her.

1...333435363738394041424344454647...146
New comment