Advice on a real working expert . - page 2
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
Quite emotional...but - totally unsubstantiated.
One: "... it's all bullshit with overvaluations, because if an EA fails, it will continue to fail however you want it to fail..."
And secondly: "... If you were trading in deficit for the last month and you think that now you will switch from buy to sell and start cutting the dough, then there is no guarantee that the EA will continue to earn. The next month you may need to trade without flipping trades...".
=====================================
Your move, dear
You must be a millionaire and have made a lot of money on flipping losing EAs? What are you doing here? Or is it that there are no losing EAs on the Internet? If the robot cannot predict the market's behaviour, then it has nothing to do with mathematics.
If the strategy is rubbish, then it will remain rubbish no matter how you spin it.
And if the Expert Advisor is really losing (that is, the rate of losing is greater than two spreads per trade), then the SERIES results will be in the plus, stupidly according to the laws of mathematics.
Do you have a sinking grail? Then it may become profitable, but since there is no profitable one, then naturally there is no one where you are 100% sure of being a loser.
And these words of yours STRICTLY MEANS that the EA in question is not a LEADER (!)
It strictly means that you should not advise a man on bullshit.
You must be a millionaire and have made a lot of money on flipping flipping advisors? What are you doing here? Or there are no losing EAs on the Internet? If the robot cannot predict the market's behaviour, then it has nothing to do with mathematics.
If the strategy is nonsense, then it will remain nonsense no matter how you spin it.
And if the Expert Advisor is really losing (that is, the rate of losing is greater than two spreads per trade), then the SERIES results will be in the plus, stupidly according to the laws of mathematics.
And you have a losing grail? Then it may become profitable, but because there is no profitable, then naturally, there is no one where you are 100% sure of losing ...
There!!! Finally you're starting to get the point that the gist of what I was saying to the man was this
And you're throwing yourself at me.
Well, look. Let's say we have an Expert Advisor that randomly opens trades. Can we say that it is not losing? Maybe, it will stagnate around 0, but then we need to have an "infinity" deposit in our account, because we do not know when it will withdraw from a drawdown, in case trading starts with a loss. But we do not have enough money to flush them down the toilet. So no matter how you flip trades, it will be the same picture - a loss.
There! You're finally starting to understand that the gist of what I said to the man was this
And you're coming at me.
It seems to me that it's not me who is getting it. Why would you give someone advice if you know that there are certain conditions that need to be met for it to work. What if he takes your advice seriously and loses his deposit again?
Let's see, let's say we have an EA that randomly opens trades. Can we say that it is not a losing EA? Maybe it will stagnate around 0...
"...he will stomp around at 0..."
This Advisor is the dream of any smart trader, because it simply guarantees a comfortable existence of the trader and all his descendants, while there is Forex.
You, in your reasoning, ALWAYS rush either to a losing or a non-losing advisor
...
And there can be no ambiguity: either the Advisor is SELLING (and then you earn by opening against its signals), or it is NOT SELLING (and again you earn by opening according to its signals).
)
(And you say: ". So why are you giving the man advice...". And then, so that he can earn... That's why
And then so that he can earn... That's why.)
Will he make money?
YOU'RE ALWAYS RUSHING TO A LOSING AND A NON-DEALING EXPERT ADVISOR.
It's you who can't understand what you're being told.
"It will stagnate around 0..."
This EA is the dream of every smart trader, because it simply guarantees a comfortable existence for the trader and his/her descendants as long as Forex market exists.
So it follows that the example with random entry into the market is a losing Expert Advisor, so let's turn the strategy around and make money.
And there can be no difference: either the Expert Advisor is a SELLER (and then you earn by opening against its signals), or it is NOT a SELLER (and again you earn by opening according to its signals).
That's what I said above, but it's at 90-100% of one or the other.
Will it work...?
If he knows how...
"... he will stomp around at 0..."
Such an Expert Advisor is a dream for every smart trader, because it simply guarantees a comfortable existence for the trader and his/her descendants as long as Forex market exists.
So, it follows that the example with randommarket entry is a losing Expert Advisor...
You know, I would be very interested to see how you came to this conclusion
...
.
is "low". Maybe I missed something... ...and "flush" now means something else...?
What would be the chain of reasoning for you to go from the phrase "... will stomp around at 0..." would make it appear that the Expert is a drain
At the moment I know, that Expert Advisor, which stably goes to zero
If he figures out how...
You know, I'd be very interested to see how you came to that conclusion ...
What would be the chain of reasoning that from the phrase "... ...will stomp around at 0..." to make it appear that the Expert is a drain.
At the moment I know that it is a "low" Expert Advisor, which stably goes in the red. Maybe I missed something... ...and now "flush" means something else...?
If random market entry is not a losing strategy, then one of two things, either it is a profitable strategy, or, as you say "... it will stagnate near 0 ..."
This EA is the dream of any smart trader, because it simply guarantees a comfortable existence for the trader and all his descendants, while there is Forex.
At the moment I know that "plum" is considered to be an Expert Advisor, stably going into minus
. Maybe I missed something... ...and "losing" now means something else...?
Well, there's no such thing as steadily going negative and steadily going plus. That's why I said it's all flip-flopping bikes. You rather responded to the man ironically, but what if he actually follows the advice and loses money again.
But then I don't understand the posts about "concrete examples" where you were proving, so they weren't on consistently draining experts.
Well, then from your assertions, if a random market entry is not a losing strategy, then one of two things, either it is a profitable strategy, or, as you said "... it will trample near 0..."
This EA is the dream of any smart trader, because it simply guarantees a comfortable existence for the trader and all his descendants, while there will be Forex.
At the moment I know that "plum" is considered to be an Expert Advisor, stably going into minus. Maybe I missed something... ...and "losing" means something else...?
Well, there's no one that's consistently in the negative and no one that's consistently in the positive. That's why I said it was all flip-flops. You rather responded to the man ironically, but what if he actually follows the advice and loses money again.
But then I don't understand the posts about "concrete examples" where you were proving, it means they weren't on consistently draining EAs.
Exactly... Let's both emphasise to the topicstarter that HE IS NOT RIGHT when he spits towards a leaking EA (!).
If he REALLY has a draining EA - let him remember this day in his life... and rather learn the technique of trading on its signals.
But, like you, I have not yet encountered any stories about the existence of a truly plummeting Expert Advisor.
So, it turns out that the search for the topicstarter should not be a losing, profitable or waffling around zero Expert Advisor, but the EA with at least one STABLE CHARACTERISTICS.
Stability of any characteristic in the Expert Advisor statistics - that's the source of profit in trading
But, like you, I have not yet encountered any stories about the existence of a truly draining EA.
Well, yes, we have not met a really losing Expert Advisor (if you want to understand the meaning of the word). Then, according to our reasoning, Expert Advisors that lead deposit to zero can be called losing. The Expert Advisor is simply losing, not profitable. And the rollover methods do not apply to a losing strategy, it turns out the same way as with flipping a coin.