Is there proof of profit from using Autotrading? - page 6

 
George Merts:

What are you getting attached to the bank for?

The question was "is there a theory". You were shown proof of a theory that was smooth on paper, but you forgot about the ravines.

We can look for tougher proof - 100K bets in a row, not once lost, we have 100K bets net profit.

Showed what, what proof?

A complete scapegoat, not an advisor, if you say so openly and bluntly.

I wrote such a thing in the first class.

Purely my opinion.

But besides how to write an Expert Advisor, you need to know a lot of things not to screw up suddenly and unexpectedly.

The money is not given away so easily, you have to understand that.
 
Renat Akhtyamov:

A total hoarding, not a counsellor, if you say so openly and bluntly.

I wrote that in first grade.

Purely my opinion.

Are you referring to me or the advisor who said: "- 100K bets in a row, never lost, 100K bets net positive."
 
Lilita Bogachkova:

Are you talking about me, or is that the advisor: "- 100K bets in a row, never lost, 100K bets net positive."

You chop 50% in a day and enjoy two and a half years.

Get it?

Good luck!
 
Renat Akhtyamov:


Did you get it?


NO. Although maybe he meant: You chop 50% in a day and enjoy six months.https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/165464/page391#comment_5000621
FOREX - Тенденции, прогнозы и следствия 2017
FOREX - Тенденции, прогнозы и следствия 2017
  • 2017.05.07
  • www.mql5.com
Правила ветки: в ветке жёсткая модерация. Ругань, оскорбления - под запретом...
 
Lilita Bogachkova:

Are you referring to me or to the Expert Advisor: "- 100K bets in a row, never lost, have 100K bets net positive."

Again, this is the result of a simple martin advisor. If you want 0.9 non-display probability, then a 32M deposit is enough. If you want 0.95 non-display probability, then you have to have a 64M deposit, if you want 0.99 non-display probability - you have to have a 128M deposit. I do not remember the exact figures, but they are exactly of that order.

What is not "a winning, fully automatic strategy, giving 100K wins in a row with a probability 0.99"? In my opinion, such a probability of winning 100K wins in a row is the dream of any trader. And it is provided by a simple martingale, statistical proof - easy to deduce.

 

George Merts:


32M, 64M, 128M.



I'm not so good at Russian, how many M's is that?
 
Lilita Bogachkova:

I'm not that fluent in Russian, tell me the letter "M" is how much?

In fact, it's Latin for 'mega', a million. K is "kilo", a thousand.

Take a deposit of $32 million, and calmly put a TP of $1 (and a SL of $1). And go ahead, a perfectly normal martin.

Lose - you double the bet. Won - again bet $ 1. As a result, you have a 90% chance of not losing your 32 million in 100 thousand bets (and with a 10% chance all 32 million will be lost at one point). The winnings would be $100,000.

If you want to raise the probability to 99% - you need a deposit of 128 million.

 
George Merts:

In fact, it's Latin for 'mega', a million. K is "kilo", a thousand.

Take a deposit of $32 million, and calmly put a TP of $1 (and a SL of $1). And go ahead, a perfectly normal martin.

Lose - you double the bet. Won - again bet $ 1. As a result, you have a 90% chance of not losing your 32 million for 100 thousand bets. Your winnings will be $100,000.


If you lose, the next double bet is placed in which direction?
 
Lilita Bogachkova:

If you lose, the next double bet is placed in which direction?

Martingale doesn't care. Place your bets either way. That's the whole point of martingale - it's purely an MM strategy that doesn't depend on the symbol. Works on regular roulette too.

The idea is to take small frequent gains, and small frequent losses - to transfer to the zone of rare and big losses. It is necessary to transfer losses to the zone of such a rare big loss, so that it would not occur in a lifetime (for 100K bets) and stop playing before that moment. Necessary deposit is easy enough to calculate - ask the number of wins in a row, and the probability of not losing. And we get a quite normal theoretical justification.

 
George Merts:

If you lose, you double your bet. If you win, you bet $1 again. As a result you have a 90% probability you will not lose your 32 million for 100 thousand bets (and with a 10% probability all 32 million will be lost at one point). The winnings will be $100,000.

You're bad at maths. The probability of winning $100k on a $32M deposit is just under 99.7% with any betting system.