Avalanche - page 221

New comment
 
=)
 
Galina,
In your opinion, does this system allow you to reduce losses (and/or increase profits) with the introduction of:
1. Dynamically calculated stop-levelling (stop-loss/take-profit).
2. Introducing a dynamically calculated trailing edge.
3. If you close at Take Profit, open the next initial order in the direction of Take Profit (by observing the demo, you open in the opposite direction).

The notion of "dynamic" cannot be fully formalised here.
For example, by the magnitude of the ratio of average volatility to current volatility (one hundred last bars to the last three).

Thanks.
 
Galina писал(а) >>


:)))
Deserved it in my opinion.....
That's no way to talk to people.


Yeah, he's talking normally. And he's right on the MM issue.

 
Galina >>:


Для особо переживающих .....
Депо минимум 29 000 рублей.
Первый лот 0.01, дальше удваиваем каждый раз. После опредиленноко кол-ва переворотов бот закрывает все в нуле и уже не ждет прибыли.
Ограничение по максимально возможной позиции как такового нет, но на тесторе он не разу не открывал более чем на 2.56 лот.
Плечо 500.
Что еще интересно ?
Прибыльность, то же писали какая, 80 % - 120 % в квартал.

You Lavinoids have no idea what you are doubling. You are doubling the lots, but the price of a pip is standing still, while the margin is growing insanely. So it's clear you can't get a sensible answer here. You will have to register a demo and see for yourself.

 
Galina >>:


ДА ПОШЕЛ ТЫ !!!
ТАК ПОНЯТНО НАДЕЮСЬ ??????????
все, в игнор этого....


))) Yes I understand the MM issue is a very sore point for all rlavinoids.
 
You are now looking at the so called "clean" versions of the EAs. They fully implement the "catch-all" strategy. There are no special gimmicks. <br / translate="no"> Except for those described above. They have not been optimized in terms of parameters. I mean, yes, I agree with Katana, it really is a working tool.

We are now planning further upgrades for these two EAs. We will try them and we will see what will be achieved. It is possible to increase the profitability, we will listen to all suggestions. It is just that the issue at this stage was the EA survival rate, i.e. the drawdown rate. But even so, we can already be satisfied with the result.
 
PapaYozh >>:


Да, нормально он разговаривает. И в вопросе ММ он прав.


In this case I was referring specifically to the author, not to me.
There's no desire to talk to people who drag others through the mud. That's okay, the author will get over it and move on,
but "this one", in the gutter.
 
The demo's in the account. I didn't expect this kind of embarrassment from normal people. What you're telling people. Take that pathetic shame away and don't clown around on the forum. The responder opens a 0.01 lot and puts 0.02 lots of pending orders. When the pending order triggers. Margin is equal to 0.02 lot at once and the pip price is equal to 0.01 lot. At further growth of reversals the EA shows the terrifying increase of margin, with low growth of the price of a pip. Margin for those lots that are in the lock is crazy, but the price of a pip is 0 because these lots are in the lock. The EA pays huge margins for worthless lots. I don't give a shit on the market and I don't know how to do it.
And there's no doubling. You have to be insane to double the margin for the same price of a pip. It seems that the MM issue is a real sore point for the Libinoids. I understand that Katala is an idiot... But people who write EAs are too embarrassed not knowing the basic principles of trading. I will repeat, do not shame yourself with elementary principles of trading, remove this piece of shit adviser and go learn the basics. Only avalanche traders may pay a margin of 0.02 for a lot of 0.01. As a result, I claim that the market will collapse much sooner than on netting. But you are not able to understand that.
 
And another question of a theoretical nature.
As far as I understand, there will be no loca in MT5. I.e. there will be no simultaneous holding of opposite positions.

When another position is placed in an avalanche, the previous order must be closed (or it will be closed automatically by the terminal).
The volume of the next position will be subtracted from the previous one.

Question.
The effectiveness of the arrow will not change if there is no possibility to lock?
The drawdown, as I understand it, will definitely increase?

Thank you.

P.S. Please forgive me if I have written nonsense.
 
E_mc2 >>:
Маржа сразу как за 2 лота, а цена пипса как за лот 0,01.

At the moment Momont is pledged 400 roubles out of 40 000, opened by a total volume of 0.07, on the balance sheet is floating -30 roubles.....
Who is the idiot here?
And who's the idiot here?
:)))))

1...214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228...523
New comment