Avalanche - page 259

New comment
 
E_mc2 писал(а) >>

What is the point? We need 51% of profitable trades at profit=loss in order to make any profit. But it is clear that the distribution may be just as bad, and we are losing. We need 40% profit trades on Laboucher. That's the point. Obviously , it is much easier to create TS that will give profit at 40% than to create TS that will give profit only at 51%. Isn't it? The distribution may be equally bad in both cases. But what is easier? Is it easier to make profit when you need 51% of profitable deals or when you only need 40%?


For me the opposite is evident. A person who has been trading profitably for eight years cannot be ignorant of elementary laws.
When the value of profitable trades decreases from 50% to the same 40%, the very nature of series distribution changes.

Here are the statistics on the distribution of a sample of 30 000. Laboucher was tested on it as well. ))
We can see a sharp increase in the number of losing series.
Please do not say that you are breaking them up with profitable series in a few pips. Do not confuse the audience.



I`m afraid to show the balance graph. The drawdowns are so large that the balance is not even visible.
But in the end everything ends with a happy ending, all as guaranteed by his experience, the mentor of young traders, Oleg.
The only question is that no one will live up to it (the happy ending) except himself.

 
E_mc2 писал(а) >>


 I'm OK. Don't take me for a weakling.) You got the wrong guy.) I don't care what you think. Or do you think I came here to the forum to show off my stats and go out of my way to prove that Martin makes money or that I personally make money? You got it all wrong.
Don't be so nervous. You're not taking care of yourself. If it makes you feel any better, I'll tell you, I'm losing... calm down... I've been losing for 8 years. About once every six months. And I don't have any stats at all - I'm a demo guy. I'm a demo junkie)))) And martin's bullshit too, don't you dare use it. Hope you feel better.


You're lying again? >> Well, why!
You can't leak for eight years in a row. If you want to drain constantly, you have to pour in with equal consistency, that's one.
Second of all. An adequate beginner, after the first flush, goes into himself, begins to think, then either comes back in another quality level, or leaves for good.
.............
And you are eight years old? Great. Wow.
Only it's already classified differently. Schizophrenia.
............
That, my dear, is why you can't code.
And you say the same thing over and over again. You repeat yourself.
Often and spontaneously become hysterical and sweary.
...........
I apologise at once if the diagnosis is not confirmed.
But, unfortunately, it all adds up.

 
E_mc2 >>:

На МТ4 став в замок. Ты всё равно что закрыл позу. А на МТ5 получаеца, закрыл и опять открыл. Ты опять баран сравниваешь открытую позию с отсутствием позиции. Какая одинаковая цена пипса. ТЫ лжошь. На МТ4 цена пипса 0. Ты ж в замке 0,1 бай - 0,1 селл цена пипса =0. А на МТ5 у тя чистыми открыт ордер на 0,1 и цена писа 1 бакс. А теперь подумай что если б например цена пошла дальше в сторону ордера на МТ5. То пройдя скажем хоть 20 пипсов, ты бы по открытой позиции заработал бы + 20пипс. А в МТ4 ты в замке. Цена пипса 0. И ты бы ничего не заработал. Опять хитрый троль сравниваешь 0 с открытой позой.

It's clear from this example with you too. Keep up the good work.
 
John, I do not know how it is in your galaxy, but for us opening a counter-order with the same volume is equal to closing the first one. And by closing the first order (not opening a counter order), we - earthlings - save on swaps, and in some some DCs where it is forbidden to close a counter OrderClose. In some brokerage companies where closing OrderCloseBy counter is prohibited, we also save on spreads. Well, I'm not even speaking about such a trifle as slippage on a pile of blocked orders at their opposite closing.
Although, even some of us earthlings do not understand it. And now I think I know why. They were abducted by your alien tribesmen and there, in their alien laboratories, prozombified.
It's inhuman, John! Although... what's it to you?
 
Galina and Dimitri, if you change something on your demo account like this, please write back, like "technical work", otherwise I will think bad things about the advisor;)))))
 
Orest >>: Sure.
Thank you, I understand in principle. The drawdown is significant (34.75%), but tolerable for now, in my opinion. Laboucher has not made his death bite yet: insufficient statistics.

In justification of Laboucher's system: regardless of the ratio of average size of profitable and unprofitable trades, increasing the percentage of profitable trades (here 57) by itself reduces the duration of unprofitable series (or rather, series in which the local percentage of profitable trades is substantially less than the statistical average). It is not very noticeable here, but with larger statistics it would be.

This, by the way, is one of the Laboucher "improvements" I have been thinking about.
 
OlegTs >>:
Галина с Дмитрием, если вы чего на своем демосчете меняете так, отписывайтесь что-ли, типа "технические работы", а то я на советника подумаю плохое;)))))


Yes Yes !!!
Paprdon, let me explain.
The version was tweaked a bit last week.
Just running new variants now, so the poses had to be handclosed beforehand.
The working mechanism is the same, meaning you won't notice any difference.
 
E_mc2 >>:


И что. Суть осталась той же. При 40% в серии профит всегда. Уже говорил депо нада будет делить на больше частей. ЧТо б выдержать просадку. По просадке и депо подбирают или ты не в курсе?? А 40% есть в серии будет профит всегда.




I'll probably repeat what Mathemat said.If we don't care about the drawdown (based on your reasoning - we just need to find the right depo size). Then why do we need Lyabusher
Classic Martin wins absolutely and unconditionally in all respects against this background. After all, for a classic Martin it is of no concern what percentage of profitable trades will be. It needs only ONE profitable trade to put the deposit in the black. It does not matter what series, even 10, even 10 trillion. One profitable deal - and you are in the black... on a series of a hundred trades - it will be only one percent profitability... (such a losing TS - you have to manage to write it: )))) if it's even possible... so that only one trade out of 100 is profitable... It must take a special talent ...
And even in such a hypothetical, inimitably plummeting TS - classical martin "purely mathematically" (your words) - will always be in profit.
We just need to select the size of the deposit:)

Agree, dear - that your long post - nothing more than demagoguery. For if you divide the deposit, say, into 10000 parts - and operate with such a tiny fraction (to normalize the risks to an acceptable level) - the percentage of profit will be so negligible that any bank - will give you an order of magnitude more reward, if you just put the money on deposit ...
Therefore, this is just theoretical conclusions, having absolutely no real basis, so - with absolutely no practical benefits and implementation....
 
Galina >>:


Да Да !!!
Папрдон, обьясняю.
Версию немного подправили на прошлой недели.
Сейчас просто новые варианты запустила, поэтому позы пришлось ручками закрыть предварительно.
Механизм работы тот же, то есть вы разницы не заметите никакой.

Thank you!!! Let's meditate further;))))))

 
Orest >>:

1-й тест.
Система как есть.

2-й тест Лябушер

3-й классический мартин. На коэффициенте 2 - полный слив, пришлось поставить 1.7.


Explain. Judging from the second graph, the Laboucher is not implemented as described above.

Otherwise the character of the curve should be different, roughly like here

The balance at the end of the completed series should be slightly greater than at the end of the previous series. It's somehow different with you.

Have you applied any constraints?

1...252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266...523
New comment