[Archive] Learn how to make money villagers! - page 765
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
Those who have a system with clear practical advantage and MO>0, do not care about quickly withdrawing the initial deposit. Those who have 70-80 percent drawdown take care of it. Because where 80, there are 100. And increase of the deposit will decrease the annual yield. Maybe there is no averaging, but the system is close to an eagle. And the real is very likely to make it negative by MO. In short, a strange desire to put it on the real, especially since even in the tester there was a slightly decreasing yield at the end of 2011-2012. Apparently the current volatility of the markets does not suit this "know-how". That is the impression so far.
Where is it weak, you must not have looked hard enough) Yields are about the same everywhere. And the FS is very decent, you'll have to look for them.
Plus increasing the deposit does not reduce the annual return as you say. This is true only if you are going to freeze the initial funds for the whole period of trading.
The correct way to do it is the other way around. Namely, to withdraw the initial investment as soon as it will be repaid.
And rightly so. After all, it is only the capital needed at the start. Once it is at a safe distance, it can and should be withdrawn. From this point on we have already started with a zero deposit. Now calculate the yield from it)
The main criterion of system adequacy is a clearly defined drawdown, preferably limited in absolute value. And a positive RO of course. If this is the case, it is only a matter of time before the profit is generated.
----------------------
The smart thing to do is to do things differently. Namely, to withdraw the initial investment as soon as it is paid back.
Try to think more down to earth.
In order to withdraw the initial funds the system must give at least 200% growth.
A benchmark system, with a 2-3% risk per trade, is able to give 50-100% annual growth.
Anything much higher than that - is a clear profanation, leading to overloading of the deposit and unnecessary risks with known consequences.
If you do not dream of being among the lucky ones, one in a million, who earns more, then you can withdraw your initial investment only after 2-3 years.
For some reason, villagers are believed to be special and will make 100% a week with impunity, and twice a month to withdraw the original investment.
However, the vast majority on the forex market think so.
Funny, isn't it?
The smart thing to do, however, is different. That is, to withdraw the initial investment as soon as it is paid off.
I thought so too at first... with my lavin-pyramid averaging... checked it out and came to the conclusion that it was just another misconception.... .
Don't believe me - simulate withdrawal-input of funds on your computer according to your scheme (wagered100%-withdrawal) . And how much over a year's worth of %.
A benchmark system, with a risk per transaction of 2-3%, is capable of yielding a gain of 50-100% per year.
Anything much higher than that is obvious profanity, leading to deposit overload and unwarranted risk with known consequences.
Everyone has a different benchmark. This system shows a 100% gain (of initial funds) in a week.
At the same time, the loss percentage is less than 100% (of the same initial funds), not only for the week, but for the entire historical data.
The smart thing to do, however, is different. That is, to withdraw the initial investment as soon as it is paid back.
It's only the villagers who do that. For fear of losing out. The others, who have adequate systems, exploiting the pattern-benefit-pattern - call it what you like, increase the lot at the same percentage of risk. And they do not put the system, which showed 70-80% drawdown in the tester, on the real market. Because the test results should be worsened by half to get the real picture on the real site. :)
I thought so too at first ... with my lavin-pyramid averaging ... checked it out and came to the conclusion that it was just another misconception.... .
Don't believe me - simulate withdrawal-input of funds on your computer according to your scheme (wagered100%-withdrawal) . And how much per year % will be obtained.
Of course, in the case of averaging/martin the possible loss is not limited by anything. That is why it is impossible to apply normal money management rules to such a system.
Again, an important criterion of a system quality is a definite and strictly specified amount of possible losses, and what is important - in TOTAL amounts, not as a percentage of a deposit.
Then, when you take a certain amount away from the original funds, the risk of total loss becomes less likely, because the drawdown always remains constant, and the deposit increases.
It's only the villagers who do that. For fear of losing out. The others, who have adequate systems, exploiting the pattern-advantage-pattern - you can call it anything, increase the lot at the same percentage of risk. And they do not put the system, which showed 70-80% drawdown in the tester, on the real market. Because the test results should be worsened by half to get the real picture on the real site. :)
Once again. Forget about ilan, in its pure form it is not suitable for practical use. And of course in this case the money is withdrawn for fear of losing money, and always, not only at the beginning.
If you look for a system with a known absolute drawdown, then you will not withdraw out of fear, but only to ensure that the funds invested are not frozen in the account, and are used, for example, for other investments.
Of course, in the case of averaging/martin there is no limit to the possible loss. Therefore it is impossible to apply normal money management rules to such a system.
Again, an important criterion for a good system is a definite and strictly specified amount of possible losses, and what is important - in TOTAL amounts, not as a percentage of a deposit.
Then, when you take a certain amount away from the original funds, the risk of total loss becomes less likely, because the drawdown always remains constant, and the deposit increases.
Apparently, the experiments with ilan have led to complexes on the subject of drawdown, which is seen as a fundamental value. And it should always be considered in relation to profit. And at the same time to find the optimum. And in the proposed variant the growth of profit relative to the deposit (i.e. frozen funds) will slow down. Because there is a strong fear of drawdown (i.e. of being drained). This is a one-sided approach, I repeat.
Once again. Forget about ilan, in its pure form it is not suitable for practical use. And of course in this case the money is withdrawn for fear of losing, and always, not only at the beginning.
Look for a system with a known absolute drawdown, and then you will not withdraw out of fear, but only to ensure that the invested funds are not frozen in the account, and are used, for example, for other investments.
I forgot about Ilan a long time ago. :)
I am writing on the fact: there is a system with a 70-80 per cent drawdown on history. Whether it is Ilan or not is irrelevant. What is important is that the system's leader, out of fear of losing money, says that it is more practical and optimal to cut a fixed drawdown than a relative one. You can understand him, but it is an ugly approach. Because the system is initially at the eagle-return level.
Apparently, experiments with ilan have led to complexes about drawdown, which is seen as a fundamental value. And it should always be considered in relation to profit. And at the same time to find the optimum. And in the proposed variant the growth of profit relative to the deposit (i.e. frozen funds) will slow down. Because there is a strong fear of drawdown (i.e. of being drained). This is a one-sided approach, I repeat.
))) Very funny to hear you say that) You probably have not heard what it means to work with a constant lot. I can see how much the villagers' branch influenced the minds of even hardened skeptics)
Well, don't limit losses, but "tie" them to income, and then you will inevitably suffer the unfortunate fate of the "mixed-sided" approach.