Signal ranking! - page 8
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
History has seen many cases where professional electricians have been electrocuted.
From this we can conclude: "If you are an electrician, you are bound to get electrocuted, as your professionalism increases", there is only one way out - to retrain as a plumber
))))) Pardon the expression, but a plumber can also get shit-faced )))))) I know hundreds of electricians, all alive and well, deaths of electricians were cited when I was probably still in school )))) Don't take individual cases like that as an axiom, with experience the number of electrical burns goes down ;)
Well I can just see these brothers starting a bank and then 158 years later dumping it :) That's cool. You know the whole history of that bank, something tells me that the managers changed like a glove... So that's not an example! I asked you a very clear and understandable question. Do you think that a person who works in some industry over the years stays at the same level and does not grow professionally? You are trying to yoke, and try to prove to me that a person will eventually die. Here is your point.
My answer to all your questions and fussing about it -- has been given above:
When you can show me your personal trading that has survived long-term trends, flatulas, high volatility - and at the same time the trading indicators, such as drawdown, profitability, have been steadily improving - then we will have something to talk about.
But until there is no such a thing - my thesis: "Everybody is losing" - is correct and cannot be refuted.
Unless you (or someone else) have a proof of it, it's a talk about nothing.
There's only one argument and it's a wordless one -- it's a practical result.
No result -- no argument -- no evidence -- nothing to talk about at all.
And the Internet is littered with words and stories and the imagination of successful trudunks, drooling with anticipation of future profits.
My answer to all your questions and fuss about it -- has been given above:
And there is only one argument here and it's a wordless one -- it's a practical result.
No result -- no argument -- no evidence -- nothing to talk about at all.
And the Internet is littered with words and stories and the imagination of successful trudunks, drooling with anticipation of future profits.
If you don't know how to trade, it means that nobody does.
And for some reason it seems to many that those who earn hundreds of thousands or millions in the market should show you or others their results.
Bad example with the bank. It was founded in 1850 and was run by several generations, not by the same people who founded it.
How many years does a trader have to trade, and what results does he have to show to convince you he can do it?
I wonder if the trader does not owe anyone anything?
You put it like this: if you cannot trade, then no one else can.
And for some reason it seems to many that those who make hundreds of thousands or millions in the market should show you or others their results.
Bad example with the bank. It was founded in 1850 and was run by several generations, not by the same people who founded it.
How many years does a trader have to trade, and what results does he have to show to convince you that he can do it?
My dear friend Petros.
Can I trade or can't I trade -- whether someone can or can't trade is not the point and not the issue.
The point was that when someone broadcasts talking points that can be practically felt -- then they are either able to back up their talking points practically -- or they are a talker -- or they just don't talk about those topics.
Here's an example, the top-1 signal provider that was heavily discussed over the winter. It doesn't matter whether there is one character or a group of people under that signal -- the important thing is that the provider practically and documented the fact: "the provider is not good at trading and his strategy is a drain".
If this provider comes out on the forum and starts telling us how to trade profitably, people will just laugh at his avatar.
But if he gets on the podium and starts telling how to get subscribers -- he will be listened to with more attention.
So my point is this -- in our field, only what can be practically confirmed is valuable. If there is no practical confirmation, then the points made are of exactly zero value.
My dear friend, Petros.
Whether I know how to trade or not -- whether someone knows how to trade or not -- that is not the point and that is not what this discussion is about.
The point was that when someone broadcasts talking points that can be practically felt -- then they are either able to back up their talking points practically -- or they are a talker -- or they just don't talk about those topics.
Here's an example, the top-1 signal provider that was heavily discussed over the winter. It doesn't matter whether there is one character or a group of people under that signal -- the important thing is that the provider practically and documented the fact: "the provider is not good at trading and his strategy is a drain".
If this provider comes out on the forum and starts telling us how to trade profitably, people will just laugh at his avatar.
But if he gets on the podium and starts telling how to get subscribers -- he will be listened to with more attention.
So my point is this -- in our field, only what can be practically confirmed is valuable. If there is no practical proof, then the theses have exactly zero value.
I agree with that, but the thing is that if provider is losing it does not mean that he is not good at trading, and it does not mean that he has a bad strategy.
If you want to collect a lot of subscribers, you have to use risky trading, violating MM.
For example I have a win-win strategy, but it's not suitable for signal and for some kind of competition, because you get only 5% per month.
For example, I have a win-win strategy, but it's not suitable for a signal or for some kind of competition, because it's only 5% per month.
What's the drawdown per month? If it's less than 5%, there will be a queue of subscribers.
What is the monthly drawdown? If it is less than 5%, there will be a queue of subscribers.
They won't line up. 5% profit per month with a max drawdown of up to 10%.
Here everybody wants to bet $100, and get millions, or live well on it.
And on a small deposit no one will be able to trade with 5% for a long time, because nerves will not hold out.
That is why we need large deposits so that they do not change tactics.
If you want to collect a lot of subscribers, you have to apply risky trading, violating MM.
This thesis of yours is refuted by the same top-1 signal discussed over the winter.
There was no risky strategy there -- and it gave an actual 5-10% (no more) per month.
p.s. Again, back to my main point -- there's practical confirmation of the thesis, it's interesting -- no practical confirmation, the value of the thesis is zero.
This thesis of yours is refuted by the same top-1 signal discussed over the winter.
There was no risky strategy there -- and it gave an actual 5-10% (no more) per month.
p.s. Again, back to my main point -- there is practical confirmation of the thesis, it is interesting -- there is no practical confirmation, the value of the thesis is zero.
Well if all sides start discussing some signal, to put it bluntly: jinx it or caricature it, then all signals will go down the drain.
That's what happened to the Koreans. As soon as they got in the crosshairs, they blew it.)