Martin plus loci - page 3
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
Behold the pattern.
Third: the buildup in a row has to be mathematically justified, and you have no justification.
Um... the rationale depends on the specific objectives. Maybe there is, it's just not given here.
Fifth: how many profitable trades do you want to turn a trade cycle into a profit? If it's one trade, then it's a total bummer.
Why does it have to be one?
P.S. Actually, to be honest, I haven't dealt with this too seriously, but I don't know of a reasonable pattern that allows profitable trading on a bare martin principle.
The naked martin principle is a game. It is not a job. When I write "martin", I don't mean pure martin style (1-2-4-8-16- etc.). This "method" is not even something to talk about. We are talking about more stable variants of martingale.
The 100% martingale is initially chosen as the basis, and then it is improved. There are a lot of ways to improve it, it is a science. Eventually, the developer comes to very mild and quite stable martin variants. And we cannot call such developments as Martins; they do not resemble Martins even by chart types.
I've already tried to explain to one person that one should be consistent in his developments, that one should have a wider viewpoint of what is going on. That it is necessary to work with large series of deals because one of the most important laws of price movements is implemented exactly on them, and it cannot always be implemented on small series. But people do not want to think, they want everything at once and in large quantities.
The most important thing is that in the process of refining the systems, in the process of figuring out what, how and where it is leaking, the developer learns the patterns of price movement. And this knowledge is worth much more than the systems he has developed.
So, ivandurak, If you want to be sure to get the maximal series of losing trades, you need to stretch your series :)) to a length that is at least several times bigger than the maximal series of losing trades, and then the lots will help you. Enter after a relatively large series with large volumes of missed losses. And of course, you should not trade against trends and against the flat, geometrically increasing the drawdown.
Yeah, and after such a "complete overhaul" the resulting system is not just not called a martin - it doesn't even need a martin itself! It can and should be discarded.
So it turns out that the basis in this case (the Martin) is extremely unreliable, because eventually it must be thrown away. Good approach to building a system!
P.S. This way of developing the system is not an exception but rather a rule. They take something initially non-working (RSI, Stoch, etc.) as a base and add so-called "filters". The result is a system of 5-6 or more indictors where the core (not the "filter" but the "core" indictor) is not really needed anymore.
That's what I'm talking about. What you don't get, gentlemen, is that every developer has their own way. One has a shorter path, the other a longer one. You do not have to "kick" them, but explain it so that they understand if you want to help :))
It is very important to take something as a "starting point" and move away from it. If this is not done, the person may for years bob between technical indicators, their combinations, neuronets, sixth derivatives of inconceivable spectra, Gana angles, Fibonacci fans and other stuff.
That's what I'm talking about. Gentlemen, you will never understand that each developer has his own way. One has a shorter one, the other a longer one. You do not have to "kick" them, but explain it so that they understand if you want to help :))
It is very important to take something as a "starting point" and move away from it. If this is not done, the person may for years bob between technical indicators, their combinations, neuronets, sixth derivatives of inconceivable spectra, Gana angles, Fibonacci fans and other stuff.
so a lot of people here have beaten me and I will, and if they don't understand, they won't try to explain, but to finish them off so they don't want to.)
Well, you've admitted that it's not Martin that's the root, so it's all ashes.
I suggest a way for you to rehabilitate yourself. You reduce any of your ideas to an extremely simple, clear task. And then you begin to complicate it.
I don't remember any of your ideas making sense.
And yes, one more thing: change your nickname, start from scratch. Your Trololo already associated with an extreme lack of clarity, and it will not soon be forgotten, even if tomorrow you start setting understandable goals.
I do not know who you were in your previous life, but at first you made a more favourable impression on me: I understood something. Then I stopped understanding, no matter how hard I tried.
I suggest a way for you to rehabilitate yourself. You reduce any of your ideas to an extremely simple, clear task. And then you begin to complicate it.
I don't remember any of your ideas making sense.
And yes, one more thing: change your nickname, start with a clean slate. Your Trololo already associated with an extreme lack of clarity of presentation, and it will not soon be forgotten, even if tomorrow you start setting understandable goals.
I do not know who you were in your previous life, but at the beginning you made a more favourable impression on me: I understood something. Then I stopped understanding, no matter how hard I tried.
I will certainly think about it all.
Ha, in general, of course all this is strange, I'm here bad no one is done, and offer a nickname still change. here I think, and it needs me at all. thoughts gradually I myself can lay down, ignoring those who prays. need to think over it and.
You, Alexei, once wrote that it was nonsense when I said that newcomers should pay attention to the rating of posts and date of registration, but it's like that.
Certain individuals with ratings can spread negativity around somebody if they want to. And ordinary people will not realize that all this was done only to get them away from their "secrets.
So I think, is it worth stepping over oneself and go along with such and change the nickname? that then such as Zhenko poked me with it in front of the same forum administration, pointing to the petty transformations. in the end I put three mountains on these ....... to talk about their directions they are not needed. Perhaps it is simply necessary to think and to describe correctly all situation in the profile. that the person understood intentions of trolling personalities with ratings.
ps: but still think about it, thanks.
That's the thing is that with such a small rating you've already earned yourself such a steady reputation (I mean inarticulate). I don't give a damn about that rating, once again!
And the common people will no longer understand that all this was done only to get them away from their "secrets".
That's the thing, with such a small rating you've already earned yourself such a steady reputation (I mean inarticulate). I don't give a damn about that rating, once again!
Enough already, change the record. You haven't told any special secrets yet: no one understands you.Is it any wonder how and at whose expense I earned it. that in such a short time, a man without giving a caca to anyone can turn himself into a monster?
I didn't start the record, it's the facts, of course I didn't say anything directly about the secrets, that's in the future, but I try to reason about some thoughts and their orientation, and this orientation lies in the field of these secrets, which is so infuriating for the trolls.