Avalanche - page 462
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
Report from page 457.
We see +3 deposits over 2.5 years. (rounded to 3 years for any non-tester costs).
Total: 100% per annum, ie $750/12month = $ 62.5 a month at work 0.01-0.87 lot
It's not really serious. To say the least. Maybe you have a different business plan for the next three years.
100% isn't enough for you? No need to cling to the absolute values of profit. I told you everyone is free to choose the maximum lot for themselves according to their budget. And why are you obsessing on the lot range. The main criterion is the drawdown. Do you think from the mathematical point of view, trading with an Expert Advisor that does not use Martingale and has the same maximal drawdown at one third of the initial deposit and the same 100% of annual return is better? Then prove it with formulas.
I have a word in creating a grail - price is either above the wagons or below the wagons, so why not place orders at the point X?
It's easy to place orders from the rainbow in the purple zone - if the price won't go anywhere then it's a flat.
In an avalanche, the main problem is entry! It's important - I'm betting on the wagons - because the purple chip is the point of market equilibrium, we should start there.
i want to test it - i used to test it without rainbow - i ended up losing - now let's see
You can write an EA, give me the links to the indicators you have on the screen and the parameters for entry/exit. And in a couple of days the EA will be written ... With or without martinis.
What is wrong?
Partitioning. What is the sacred meaning of cycle splitting? The correct answer is that there isn't one. Because each cycle has a different depth. The cycles of greatest depth are a fairly flexible fit, plugging the most sagging holes. The fit is of fairly good quality, as there are relatively very few of them. There is no guarantee that this will continue to be the case, even to the contrary.
I think it is almost obvious. I have no desire to talk about it any more. So, good luck, especially to khorosh in the real world.
We agree to anything, as long as no more than three flips.... ))
:-))) As an option (I'm trying it myself now), in the magazine, you can try, "to reduce the aggressiveness of the volume of lots with each successive rollover (iteration)" through the use of adding lots in accordance with the FIBO numbers, ie get the following: entry - 0.01 lot, stop - loss - 1st iteration - 0.01L, the 2nd iteration - 0.02L, 3: 0.03, 4:0,05, 5:0,08 lot, ..., 10: 0.89 - with these layouts in the end (at the end of the calendar year) is the final profit is slightly less, but the risks, using your terminology:
"We'll do anything, as long as it's no more than TEN coups...." :-)) And that's SIGNIFICANTLY more interesting...
P.S. It turns out to be a kind of analogy, as Galina wrote, that the owl cuts off at night ... Here, on the other hand, work is being done around the clock, currently testing this option.
...as Galina wrote, ...
What difference does it make how Galina wrote if she was caught in a lie?
:-))) As an option (I'm trying it myself now), you can try it in the magazine, "reduce the aggressiveness of lot volume increase with each successive roll (iteration)" ..........
Not a panacea... There's even an Aggressive parameter ))
But the results of such a TS stop satisfying even in the context of monthly trading results.
In the tester a 10-year test passes in ten seconds, while in real life the main cycle is a month (salary, pensions, utilities, payments of credits).
100% isn't enough for you? No need to cling to absolute values of profit.
Sorry, but every month I pay various bills and unfortunately they come in absolute values. Yes, and running costs are specific amounts.
Do you think that from a mathematical point of view trading an EA without martingale and having the same maximum drawdown of one third of the initial deposit and the same 100% p.a. is better? Then prove it with formulas.
At least the difference in reinvestment and change of lot size in proportion to the size of deposit when working with fixed lot.
Or are you going to add MM to the TS with Martin and the lot size 1 to 87? ))
That's why I asked for a business plan in the studio....
Sorry, but every month I pay various bills and unfortunately they come in absolute values. Yes, and running costs are specific amounts.
At least the difference in reinvestment and change in lot size proportional to the size of the deposit when working with a constant lot.
Or are you going to attach MM to the TS with Martin and 1 to 87 lots? ))
That's why I asked for a business plan in the studio....
1. Apply the maximum lot proportionate to your capabilities and get absolute values proportionate to your desires.
2. I too once thought that applying MM with reinvestment to a system with a martin was unrealistic, but when I was contradicted by Katana, I quickly realised I was wrong. I think I was wrong. There is no difference in its use in a system with or without martin. Unfortunately, you do not understand it yet. For example have an TS that trades with one order with a lot equal to the total lot of an TS with a Martin. Can you compare the difference in MM with reinvestment in both cases?
For example, the deposit has grown, so we increase the lots proportionally, and what happens - a disaster?
1. Apply the maximum lot proportionate to your capabilities and get absolute values proportionate to your desires.
2. I also used to think that applying MM with reinvestment to a system with a Martin is unrealistic, but when Katana objected, I quickly realized that I was wrong. I guess there is no difference in its application to a system with or without martin. Unfortunately, you do not understand it yet. For example have an TS that trades with one order with a lot equal to the total lot of an TS with a Martin. Will there be any difference in MM with reinvestment in both cases?
For example if deposit has increased proportionally to lots and what happens - a disaster?
TheXpert:
I think it is almost obvious. I do not want to discuss it any longer. All the same, good luck, especially to khorosh on the real account.
But the results of such a TS cease to be satisfying in terms of monthly trading results.
There are already options here... Let's keep looking.
P.S. I'm sure it's not all that clear-cut - it's to the question of "satisfaction already in terms of monthly trading results ".