What does a fair formula for rating Signals look like? - page 4
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
In my opinion, the ranking of signals should be determined ONLY by the amount of real Equity in the signal account.
The only basis is the signal provider's trust in their own signal. The provider who knows his signal best is also well aware of whether it makes sense to risk large amounts or not. Correspondingly, no other value will show you the provider's own feelings. And it is precisely these feelings that you should be guided by when setting your rating.
Too often the signal provider's goal is to "pay off a sucker". One does not have to go far - topics of "looking for an investor for a guaranteed income" appear on the forum with enviable regularity. However, their authors do not want to risk even their $100, for more - is out of the question. What, really can't they earn this wretched hundred? Yes they can! They just know that their signal with the "guaranteed profitability" is not really worth a penny, and can fail at any time. A signal Provider who has on deposit at least $10K of its real amount - is already worth attention.
All demo signals must have a zero rating.
Moreover, the monthly payment for the signal does not exceed 1% of Equity.
But a sucker is not a mammoth, he will not become extinct... So the signalers do not have to worry.
Very much in line with my thoughts.
It's a shame that this rather fundamental idea is not heard.
It's not even that the rest of indicators should be discarded, although lovers of "playing with figures" have heard it.((
They introduced a distinction between demo and real (kotir may differ), but the idea was to check their seriousness, and cent accounts roll here...
Weighing the rating on the real equity of the signal provider's account is a very sensible idea and a good regulator with feedback, in terms of risks to subscribers.
And the idea of limiting the cost of subscription to 1% of the signal provider's funds should be implemented immediately! o)
And the idea of limiting subscription costs to 1% of the signal provider's funds should be implemented immediately! o)
Well, then choose a signal that costs 1% of your account, there is a filter, you can choose.
You need the csv file I wrote about. Then you can divide the "cost of the signal" column by the "funds in the account" column and select for yourself the signals that cost <1%.
You are wrong on all counts.
Yandex also keeps the ranking formula a secret.
Well, then choose a signal that costs 1% of your account, there is a filter, you can choose.
no, you can't use filter. You need that csv file I wrote about. Then you can divide the "signal cost" column by "funds in the account" column and select the signals that cost <1%.
Who cares about what, but the louse about the ban).
This is not a discussion about how to pick what for whom.
We are discussing the principles of "fair" rating.
I merely said that the idea of taking into account the real money at stake for the signal provider resonates with me.
As for me, it's not good, when risking 30$ someone may demand the same fee for monthly signal...
also it's strange, that such provider has 30$ of his own funds at risk, while millions of dollars of subscribers "charmed rating" do not count...
I wish you a good signal choice and good profits from it).
Signals are made for subscribers, they lose the most money in a bad situation, subscriptions + their own. Consequently, taking care of them when calculating the rating should be at the top of the list. But the article "their" from this does not make the weather neither for providers, nor for MC. If one imagines that there is interest in the massiveness of subscriptions to many signals in total, and in their duration, rather than in the quality of the front pages in the rankings and their subscriptions. So it makes sense that incomprehensible to some people what happens with changes in the rating, andAndrey Dik's postis quite logical.
The MC as an organizer of the site "meeting" of providers and subscribers is probably important massively this site, all these technologies are polished and through the applications of modern, youtubes, networks, and so on. Naturally, ratings are considered large formulas. But those who subscribe to it clearly do not care about the full range of data entered into the formula. Sellers important (to sell), subscribers, the quality of subscriptions, and the site organizer and others, and more. But if we leave interest only for buyers, it's unlikely that there is a need for 27 parameters in the formula.
And in general, it seems to me, although naturally my opinion is nothing here, nevertheless. That μ has established almost a monopoly among DTs, this market is theirs. They have done a lot to go a head higher (if not more), to enter other types of markets, including foreign markets directly and seriously (and not in the form as it is now and how it is presented). But they have not managed to squeeze out Quick (yet), and in general to go directly to the giants, beyond the certification of the case did not go. Just do not take it as a criticism, it has nothing to do with the quality of MT, just thoughts. Where else is the company to expand in order not to stand still (which equals to be constantly competitive in the future). Exactly to create such a site. Naturally, it is not the main source of income for mk, but nevertheless. But when you put the mass of the site in the first place, it's "a bit" different than when you put the quality of the signal to subscribers (i.e. their interests) in the first place.
Let people enter in the filter what characteristics they need, and then sort the result by gain or by signal duration and choose.
and make an excel file for downloading, and let everyone rank as they want.
It's funny, when you sort by money - it treats rubles as dollars ))))
And cents too.
found an account that went from seven dollars to 165,000 ))))
That's right. Isn't it too much?
Wouldn't it be easier to leave the rating on signal Providers themselves? Those who are confident in their signals and deposit a large amount - those are worthy of the highest rating. And if a Provider is so unsure of his signal that he is afraid to deposit even a hundred quid - to me, it is an indication that the Provider does not care about the signal quality - he is thinking only about how to get more money from Subscribers.
The top one will be owned by foreigners with salaries of 3,000 dollars.