Who trades on the Live LAVINA system? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY LOSSES? - page 11
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
Bullshit. Loc + martin (= avalanche) is obvious nonsense. Both paradigms, so to speak. Grit your teeth and wait for a lucky break, or the pennies collected in six months will fly away. Together with a good part of the deposit.
About the locks I don't understand the argument. It's obvious that the lock - in its physical essence - is equivalent to the closing of a position. About the "transfer of the position" is also not quite clear - well, we have moved it somewhere. So what? At the new price level all the same problems will remain.
This can be proved mathematically, although it is hard to prove the obvious things.
Bullshit. Loc + martin (= avalanche) is obvious nonsense. Both paradigms, so to speak. Grit your teeth and wait for a lucky break, or the pennies collected in six months will fly away. Together with a good part of the deposit.
About the locks I don't understand the argument. It's obvious that the lock - in its physical essence - is equivalent to the closing of a position. About the "transfer of the position" is also not quite clear - well, we have moved it somewhere. So what? At the new price level all the same problems will remain.
We can prove it mathematically, though it is difficult to prove the obvious things.
Prove it or you are no different from locks. Just as thoughtless.
My point is that lock is different from closing a position.
Bullshit. Loc + martin (= avalanche) is obvious nonsense. Both paradigms, so to speak. Grit your teeth and wait for a lucky break, or the pennies collected in six months will fly away. Together with a good part of the deposit.
About the locks I don't understand the argument. It's obvious that the lock - in its physical essence - is equivalent to the closing of a position. About the "transfer of the position" is also not quite clear - well, we have moved it somewhere. So what? At the new price level all the same problems will remain.
This can be proved mathematically, although it is hard to prove the obvious things.
could you elaborate... what for, why, and what practical benefit does splitting have?
In the tester, the splitting may allow to check the statement that you may withdraw profit in the amount multiple of the initial deposit in the time between the mkolos. And visually look at it. But alas.....
Here's a link to that offer to Yuri.
Who has followed closely the branch "Avalanche", he knows that I have posted the results of testing with a simulated withdrawal on the interval of 2 years. After the tripling of the initial deposit one initial deposit was withdrawn and then the level of two initial deposits was maintained permanently. During 2 years, the level of two to three initial deposits varied sawily. How is this test worse than the one offered by lasso?
That would be a very bright spot in the Avalanche branch. I don't recall such an event!? Does anyone remember???
Would you be so kind as to post the link?
......
I took 10 minutes, found it and attached it in the previous post
Bullshit. Loc + martin (= avalanche) is obvious nonsense. Both paradigms, so to speak. Grit your teeth and wait for a lucky break, or the pennies collected in six months will fly away. Together with a good part of the deposit.
About the locks I don't understand the argument. It's obvious that the lock - in its physical essence - is equivalent to the closing of a position. About the "transfer of the position" is also not quite clear - well, we have moved it somewhere. So what? At the new price level all the same problems will remain.
This can be proved mathematically, although it is hard to prove the obvious things.
That would be a very bright spot in the Avalanche branch. I don't recall such an event!? Does anyone remember???
Would you be so kind as to post the link?
......
It took me 10 minutes to find it and attach it to the previous post.
Prove it or you are no different from locks. Just as thoughtless.
My point is that lock is different from closing a pose after all.
It's as clear as day!
Katana can confirm that it was, he once commented on this fact. Search, of course, long, and I may have deleted the post. Who cares if you did or didn't. I'm telling you, it was, so it was. And if you don't believe me, then what is the point of talking to me at all.
How long? 20 minutes tops! I - for the sake of my honour and dignity - wouldn't have spared two days.
If it existed, you would not have removed it. After all, why delete such a clear confirmation of the performance of the TC "Avalanche"? It's the cracks that get deleted.
Well, never mind. Was, so it was. )))
..............
Moving on.
So what prevents you from citing new "test results with simulated withdrawal over an interval of 2 years. "?
If you already have this kind of functionality, it's a trifling matter. Really???