I'm good at draining - page 8
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
i haven't seen either.....
one idea has only been floating around in my head.... there's a 100% losing strategy when used for a long time...it's a martingale.... if you flip it, you can hope(although i don't know) that sooner or later it will shoot backwards.
How do you flip a martin? Start with maximum lot and decrease when unsuccessful? Well, well ))))
How do you flip a martin? Start with maximum lot and decrease when unsuccessful? Well, well ))))
no.... The problem is that you have to start with a minimum lot, but you have to double not on a loss but on a profit, and at each doubling you have to stop at the minimum distance and go to the breakeven position with the previous profitability as a safety cushion ... If the trend is strong and the price moves in a straight line without turning around, the same thing will happen only in the plus .....
and the equity and balance chart will then be a mirror image of a normal martin..................
no.... The problem is that you have to start with a minimum lot, but you have to double not on a loss but on a profit, and at each doubling you have to stop at the minimum distance and go to the breakeven position, having the previous profitability as a safety cushion ... If the trend is strong and the price moves in a straight line without turning around, the same thing will happen only in the plus .....
and the equity and balance graph will then be a mirror image of an ordinary martin..................
Just look into it and see for yourself how wrong this approach is. If a normal martin implies an increased gain after a loss, which allows you to shift the balance in the direction of the trader, your "reverse martin" will work the opposite - with an increased loss after a gain and a small gain after a loss, which shifts the balance in the direction of the dealer.
This is if the TS without martin with a balance around zero. If the balance without martin is heavily shifted to any side, there is no need for this martin.
If you do not understand the logic, don't you? If a normal martin implies an increased gain after a loss that allows you to shift your balance in the direction of the trader, your "reverse martin" will work the opposite - with an increased loss after a gain and a small gain after a loss, which shifts the balance in the direction of the dealer.
This is if the TS without martin with a balance around zero. If the balance without martin is heavily shifted to any side, there is no need for this martin.
i seem to have described everything in detail...strange that you are turning everything upside down.... or don't understand...
"with an increased loss after a win and a small gain after a loss" what do you mean?
After one win follows a doubled win and so on for a certain series, e.g. 10 bets. You get the tenth bet, you win and start again with a small lot... If say after the 9th bet the market is not in our direction we just close the bet either at breakeven or with a minimum minus which is equal to the standard plus in a normal Martin ... don't you understand the logic?
i.e. let me explain it another way:
1. the profit we make only one case - when the series of 10 bets with doubling... it's the only way and no other way... it may happen after a month, a year or never...
and the profits will always be super large.
2. the loss is always fixed and small...and very very frequent and is the equivalent of the return on a standard martin...
3. and a profitable series of trades = the equivalent of a margin call on a standard martin
i hope it is clear now?
So let me put it another way:
1. we make a profit only in one case - when the series of 10 bets with doubling... only this and nothing else... this may happen after a month, a year or never...
and the profits will always be super large.
2. the loss is always fixed and small...and very very frequent and is the equivalent of the return on a normal martin...
I hope it's clear now?
Take off the rose-coloured glasses, you're not in a laboratory, comrade theoretician ))))
The main thing is that you cannot go back to the profitability of the system, you cannot win as you will have to do everything possible to fix it and you will have to do everything possible to recover it. But you will not be able to win it back, because after losing you offer to start again with the minimum lot. A few series like this and you're bankrupt.
bulletproof stupidity.... I'm sorry...
you're either pretending or you don't understand what I'm saying...
i tried to explain as clearly as possible ... you didn't understand a word i said ... i mean zero ... as if you didn't even read what i was saying ... whatever
just in case... read it again
"if let's say after 9 bets the market goes against us we just close the bet either at breakeven or with a minimum minus which is equal to the standard plus in a normal martin..."
bulletproof stupidity.... I'm sorry...
you're either pretending or you don't understand what I'm saying...
I tried to explain as clearly as possible ... you didn't understand a word I was saying ... well, none at all ... as if you didn't even read what I was saying ... well, whatever
Well, yes, everyone here is stupid...
Give me an example, with specific numbers and a sufficient sample of trades (at least 100), over an interval of at least six months, where your system would be in profit.
Yeah, stupid people...
Give me an example, with specific numbers and a sufficient sample of trades (at least 100), over an interval of at least six months, where your system would be in profit.
I don't want to and I don't have to prove anything to anyone...
I gave an idea - (good or bad is another matter) and ran into a wall of incomprehension ...
i now give them the state...maybe i should spoon-feed it to them as well?
and from where? it's an idea i came up with an hour ago while reading this thread... just an idea, that's all