Councillor Manova - page 3

New comment
 
YOUNGA:


Manov had only 3 days of drawdown on eurusd - at the end of the championship closing does not count - there could have been trades not closed post-strategy

What do you mean by drawdown? A slippage in the balance? Well, it does not mean anything - once again, Manov's Equity was always in deficit against the balance, and the latest closing just confirms this fact and this drop has been quite large and this is characteristic of the averaging.

At the same time, the trader has really got lucky: if the Championship had ended in a slightly less favourable period for his current trades, he could have fallen much lower or even into the red at closing.

 

But it's better to wait out the drawdown than to get a margin call

At the end of the day the size of the no-failure move can be modelled on the history (maximum movement on the eudusd is 1.22 to 1.6), and the continuous movement to 2.0 will not happen

 
YOUNGA:

it's definitely not a martin - averaging and working in the counter-trend (i'm here on the branches "old-timers" discuss but their entries by indicators (wpr)) - but manov is immediately visible in the trades is simply entering at levels equal to the lot (0.1) but each successive level is closer to the previous one. -But with manov it is immediately visible on the transactions simply entry points at levels of equal lot (0.1) but each successive level is closer to the previous - I think a very interesting approach - one would think who knows where the trend will start
I called it a martin figuratively. A pure martin is a special case of averaging with a coefficient of 2. But the coefficient may be more or less than 2. In fact, nothing changes from this; the draw is predetermined. There is, of course, as everywhere else, the luck factor, which is the only hope in these types of TS.
 
YOUNGA:

1. But it is better to sit out a drawdown by strategy than to get a margin call

2. At the end of the day the amount of non-failure movement can be simulated (look) on the history (maximum movement on the eudusd is 1.22 to 1.6), and the continuous movement up to 2.0 will not happen.

1. Unfortunately, sitting out is not always enough of a deposit and drawdowns turn into MCs. Unless you expect profitability of 1-3% per annum, but even that does not guarantee success. Better to put in a bank.

2. We have modeled many times. Hence the conclusions. If you do not use cunning tester techniques, there is no fish here.

 
goldtrader:
loss is a foregone conclusion

A little by the book, as averaging losses - I agree, will be a sinking, think, and what will work if the TS which at a large number of transactions within the day, on a long history ALWAYS get breakeven, ie one day 10-15 transactions, the total profit is about equal to the total loss

this is the system that can be rocked by Martin

 
IgorM:

A little by the book, as averaging losses - I agree, will be a sinking, think, and what will work if the TS which at a large number of transactions within the day, on a long history ALWAYS get breakeven, ie one day 10-15 transactions, the total profit is about equal to the total loss

this is the system that can be rocked by martin

The critical thing here is the maximum number of losing trades in a series. If there is a way to limit and guarantee it, you can use Martin. You can analyze the Z-score. But to limit the series is difficult, and to get at least a minimum guarantee is impossible, imho. And if we also take into account that at the averaging at the map is put the entire deposit, then this TS is more for games, not for work.
 

I do not want to analyze the real state (Manov).

I'll paste a picture (EURUSD) - no eqivity, only balance - but only one losing trade (the last one)

 
goldtrader:
Critical here is the maximum number of losing trades in a series.
Yes YOU are right, but pay attention to my previous post, I wrote a deal a day 10-15, ie 5-7 profit/loss, and if the TC for a long history so behaves ALWAYS, then nothing wrong with applying Martin in accordance with game theory, because the system is already initially profitable if it can work during the day the spread, slippage and lag indicators / decision-making
 
YOUNGA:

I will insert a picture (EURUSD) - yes there is no liquidity only balance - but only one losing trade (and that was the last one)

This is the problem - only the balance chart masks all the problems of the TS. If a trade brings floating deposit losses of 30%, and then closed with a profit of 1%, what is this TS worth? But it could have been closed by the MC. The balance chart is dust in the eye.
 
YOUNGA:

It's an amusing discussion

Not funny, I wrote above - such a system as Manov with loss waiting is not interesting, losses will always be, google Predator it works like that if you remove them, and it cost 1.3K - as you understand the Grail
1234567891011
New comment