Sparring on MetaQuotes-Demo demo accounts - page 17
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
Make a better deal with Soros then - more can be raised.
The question is, what is your priority - the spirit of competition and the satisfaction of knowing your professional level as a trader (proger), or the desire to get a prize in any way (as an option to get satisfaction from your own cunning*****)?
I clearly explained above what the minimum number of trades limit is for. To weed out random winners and to prevent possible manipulation. I am interested in participating only if the rules are transparent and there are restrictions for potential cheaters (as the number of participants increases, the chances of winning honestly decreases).
What kind of "spirit" will you get if there are all sorts of loopholes? What kind of competition is this, then?
I clearly explained above why there should be a limit on the minimum number of trades. To weed out random winners and to prevent possible cheating. I am only interested in participating if the rules are transparent and there are restrictions for potential cheaters (as the number of participants increases, the chances of winning honestly decrease).
What kind of "spirit" will it get if there are all sorts of loopholes? What kind of competition is this then?
You keep using the "eliminating random winners" argument... No amount of sifting will insure against a situation where the outcome of the competition is an absolute manifestation of chance. No amount of measures will eliminate 100% of the possibility of manipulation, although you should of course strive for it (no arguments about that). But all sorts of eliminations should not be discriminatory. Your approach to limiting the minimum number of transactions is akin to saying "don't sell kitchen knives in the shop because they can kill people". Fight for transparency and against fraud, but without overdoing it.
P.S. In addition, the participation of long term workers in the competition will only add spice to the clarification between "technicians" and "fundamentals".
You keep using the argument "weeding out random winners"... No amount of sifting will insure against a situation where the outcome of the contest is an absolute manifestation of chance. No amount of measures will eliminate 100% of the possibility of manipulation, although you should of course strive for it (no arguments about that). But all sorts of eliminations should not be discriminatory. Your approach to limiting the minimum number of transactions is akin to saying "don't sell kitchen knives in the shop because they can kill people". Fight for transparency and against fraud, but without overdoing it.
P.S. In addition, the participation of long term workers in the competition will only add spice to the clarification of the relationship between the "technicians" and "fundamentals".
You seem to have a problem with the terrier.
Limiting the minimum number of trades is a normal requirement present in all more or less adequate contests/competitions/championships.
There will always appear a couple of smart guys that are beating their chests like "I'm a fundamentalist" and making 1-2 deals during the whole competition.
And what kind of spice can you get from watching a snail race? What are you talking about? Are you by any chance up to your neck in a shenanigan? Why aren't you on the list of participants? Should the participants and the organiser listen to the opinion of the spectators?
You keep using the argument of "eliminating random winners"... No amount of sifting will insure against a situation where the outcome of a competition is an absolute manifestation of chance. No amount of measures will eliminate 100% of the possibility of manipulation, although you should of course strive for it (no arguments about that). But all sorts of eliminations should not be discriminatory. Your approach to limiting the minimum number of transactions is akin to saying "don't sell kitchen knives in the shop because they can kill people". Fight for transparency and against fraud, but without overdoing it.
P.S. In addition, the participation of long-term competition will only add spice to the clarification between the "technicians" and "Fundamentalists".
1:100 is the most democratic approach
I made up my mind though)
The main thing is not to win, the main thing is to participate and win =)
I made up my mind though)
It's not about winning, it's about participating and winning=)
Welcome to our ranks.
... Why are you not on the list of participants? Should the participants and the organizer listen to the opinion of spectators?
If the spectator's opinion and interests won't be taken into account when organizing an event, there's very little chance for a spectator to become a participant (as they say, "I don't play such games"). Therefore, if the event is planned in the form of a small get-together of a narrow circle of people, then "the right way to go, comrades". I'm not on the list for a very simple reason - forcing the start date without thinking carefully through the "organizational minutiae".
...
A limit on the minimum number of trades is a normal requirement present in all more or less adequate competitions/championships...
For me, the adequacy criterion is to take as a basis the trading conditions of a particular trading server with restrictions, and add to it the only restriction - each participant may have only one contest account. It should be almost "just like in real life".
Leverage 100
10000$ depo
MetaQuotes-Demo server
register a signal something like https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/282872
contest starts on 27.03.2017 - ends on 28.04.2017
I have one doubt: is there enough leverage not to lose, it's a bit shallow.)