Who trades on the Live LAVINA system? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY LOSSES? - page 10

New comment
 
lasso:

1) And you will learn to answer the questions posed to you in that thrice abandoned and thoroughly scrubbed "Avalanche" thread. Question...

2) Are you going to fill this thread with report caps and balance charts now?


There is not a single question mark in the above link, but plenty of exclamation points. Learn to contain your emotions and then you will get answers.
 
khorosh:

There is not a single question mark in the above link, but plenty of exclamation points. Learn to contain your emotions and then you will get answers.

The absence of a question mark does not indicate the absence of a question. ( Many here do not recognize punctuation at all, and nothing ... you answer them))

Yuri, can we stop farting first and looking back later?

Isn't that the question?


khorosh:
How else could it be? If without it. The principle of an avalanche is based on an asymmetrical lock. And as for the dangers of using an avalanche, I'm quite aware of that. And my strategy, as I wrote before, is to quickly double deposit and take off (withdraw profit). Well, sometimes I have to fix a decent loss (<=50% of the initial deposit), but not too much, often the profit more than covers it.
No one is arguing about the fact that the avalanche is regularly leaking. This is already a definite achievement!

But with enviable regularity you pull out of your sleeve this last fake trump card (highlighted in bold in your quote).

Somewhere in the depths of the Avalanche branch I suggested that you implement a virtual MarginCall in the EA code, split the deposit into ten virtual parts, etc....

But for several posts you avoided using this methodology, and then you categorically refused.

Don't you think there is a clear contradiction here?

.............

Emotions tempered. I hope for a response. ))

And please do not delete posts in this thread!!!

 
lasso:

I suggested you implement a virtual Margin Call in the EA code, split the deposit into ten virtual parts etc....

more details... what for, why, what is the practical benefit of splitting?
 
sever30:
could you elaborate... what for, why, what is the practical benefit of the breakdown?


the benefit is to check the survivability of this TS...

As the strategy involves taking profits when doubling due to fear of Uncle Kolya, normal testing will not give the necessary result, this case must be emulated to determine which will be more, deposit deaths or profit withdrawals...

 
There is, of course, no gain. It would just be a way for Khorosh to make sure that all his khorlins are really being drained. He's already boring everyone with his tales.
 
gip:
There is, of course, no gain. It would just be a way for Khorosh to make sure that all his khorlins are really being drained. Otherwise he is already boring everyone with his tales, himself and us.

I agree, there is no monitoring or investing...
 
lasso:

Somewhere in the depths of "Avalanche" branch I suggested you to implement a virtual Margin Call in the EA code, to divide the deposit into ten virtual parts, etc.....

******************************************************************************************************

In the Avalanche branch and in the Code Base there are a lot of different Expert Advisors, based on the avalanche principle. What prevents you from choosing one of them or creating your own variant and experiment with it as much as you like. I personally have enough experience in using avalanche, I understand its possibilities quite clearly and I don't need to follow your suggestions, I am not interested in it.

 
gip:
There is, of course, no gain. Just a way for Khorosh to make sure that all his khoroshes are really being drained. He's been boring everyone with his tales.
Who closely followed the "Avalanche" thread, knows that I posted test results with simulated withdrawal on a 2 year interval. 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?
 
 
lasso:

Somewhere in the depths of the Avalanche thread I suggested you implement a virtual Margin Call in the EA code, split the deposit into ten virtual parts, etc.....

It won't do much. Experimented with Avalanche, got good positive results too. IN TESTER. The optimisation graph looks like a sieve or a minefield. During optimization we find parameters that in the past could increase the deposit by N times without the deposit being drained but when the parameters are changed by several% we run into a minefield and the deposit is drained. In forward, IMHO it will be similar to roulette because optimization in this case is purely a fitting, as TS does not exploit market inefficiencies and is very unstable. Perhaps, if we add cunning elements of analysis, it will be useful, but in this case even without flips we can achieve a stat advantage.
1...34567891011121314151617...35
New comment