Sparring on MetaQuotes-Demo demo accounts - page 119
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
Have you seen who is at the top now? Do you see that he could be first in both categories? He'll be wearing a mink coat and a plaque.
Situation as of penultimate Friday , only 6 trading days left, only 6 candles on D1.
In theory, if he hadn't exceeded 30% he could have hit both.
He just didn't take it into account at the start. If he had, he would have hit both. That's what it's all about - you can achieve impressive profitability and still take reasonable risks. Sara and her fool Seema are at rest.
It is impossible to increase the deposit by 300% in a short period of time without exceeding the threshold of 30%.
Yes? Let's get our hands on a calculator.
The maximum drawdown was 42.92%. Now the funds are 97880.88 and the balance is 72670.19
Let's say the maximum drawdown was 30%, then:
42.92/30=1.43 times
97880.88/1.43 = 68448.17 equity
72670.19/1.43 = 50818.31 balance
As we can see, it would still remain in the top and at the same time would show a gain of more than 500% and at the same time would win in both nominations.
Yes? Let's get our hands on a calculator.
The maximum drawdown was 42.92%. Now the funds are 97880.88 and the balance is 72670.19
Let's say the maximum drawdown was 30%, then:
42.92/30=1.43 times
97880.88/1.43 = 68448.17 equity
72670.19/1.43 = 50818.31 balance
As we can see, we would still have remained in the top and would have shown a growth of over 500%.
It would not!
You go by the logic of price analysis by history, that if you would buy, and right here you would sell, you would earn money.
Originally, if you had a threshold of 30%, the lots would be 2 times smaller, so as not to accidentally exceed the bar, and in this case, a gain of 500% is excluded.
It wouldn't!
You go by the logic of historical price analysis, that if you had bought and sold here, you would have made money.
Originally, if you had a threshold of 30%, the lots would be 2 times smaller, so as not to accidentally exceed the bar, and in this scenario, a gain of 500% - ruled out.
What does price history have to do with it?
Calculate with "2 times less lots". It is still more than 300%.
97880.88/2.0 = 48940.44 equity
72670.19/2.0 = 36335.1 balance (over 300% !)
And you say "Impossible!". Literally slightly less at digimax, and at the same time the drawdown is only 14%, i.e. with a drawdown of 14% the second entrant has increased the deposit by almost 300%!!!! during the competition
And the second nomination is incorrectly named "Safety", the correct name is "Efficiency".
What does this have to do with price history?
Do the math at 'half the lots'. You will still get more than 300%.
97880.88/2.0 = 48940.44 equity.
72670.19/2.0 = 36335.1 balance (over 300% !)
And you say "Impossible!". Literally a little less at digimax, and at the same time the drawdown is only 14%, i.e. with a drawdown of 14% the second entrant has increased the deposit by almost 300%!!!! during the competition
And the second nomination is incorrectly named "Safety", the correct name is"Efficiency".
Now, this is constructive! Can we still change/revise the formula?
PS. and by the way, not 300%, but 240%. It was 10 000, became 34 000, an increase of 24 000
1. Now, that's constructive! Can we change/revise the formula?
2. PS. And by the way, not 300%, but 240%. It was 10,000, now it's 34,000, an increase of 24,000.
1. There's nothing wrong with the formula. The only thing to add is a cut-off of more than 30%. That is, if the drawdown exceeds 30%, the total score is equated to 0.
2. Not the point. The main thing you see is that it's not "impossible". Anything is possible, and earning and sticking to the risk limit. And that is the efficiency of the funds invested. If the second nomination had only one criterion "maximum drawdown", then the current title would be appropriate. But profits including drawdowns is efficiency, not safety.
There is nothing wrong with the formula. The only thing to add is a cut-off above 30%. That is, if the drawdown exceeds 30%, the total score is equated to 0.