A study on the applicability of martingale using simulations of the coin game - 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
I'm not really hiding it. There are two rules:
1. a limited number of doubles (I have 1 in real life)
2. A system that does not give a large series of losses and the ratio of profitable and unprofitable trades at least 50 to 50.
In this case, martin brings not a bad profit.
I don't hide it much. There are two rules:
1. a limited number of doubles (I have 1 in real life)
2. A system that does not give a large series of losses and the ratio of profitable and unprofitable trades at least 50 to 50.
In this case, martin brings not a bad profit.
Martingale is a great... and safe enough if not used in its pure form (like nitroglycerin)
. A trivial addition of "plasticizers" makes it comfortable and safe enough to use
Grigoriy Chaunin:
2. A system that does not produce a large series of losses and the ratio of profitable to losing trades is at least 50/50.
In this case martingale is not a bad profit.
Martingale is a great... And quite a safe thing if you do not use it in its pure form (like nitroglycerin) . The trivial addition of "plasticizers" makes it comfortable and safe enough to use
That's exactly what I'm going to check, using a simple game as an example. I will try different variants of martingale. But the game will remain the same - a coin - large series of losses will appear according to probability theory, and it is quite possible there.
In general, it is necessary to consider everything from a practical point of view; there is a certain finite number of trials that a person may manage to do in his life. If we assume that a bet is made every second for one hundred years - we obtain 60*60*24*365*100=3 153 600 000. Three billion! I ran the script to see the maximum series of failures - it turned out to be 29. So as we found out last time - counting on 32 is more than enough. All that remains is to calculate the necessary bankroll, and determine how many games a person can play in a year, and how much money they can earn. And look at the feasibility.
Trading and coin trading are different things. The point is that I will stop trading long before I get a series of 29 losses. I have an idea of how the system behaved over a long enough stretch of history. And this gives me an understanding of when to stop it. From a practical point of view, such experiments are not interesting. The market is not random. That's the whole point. Therefore, the probability theory won't work on it. The proof that the market is not random was referenced here. Such a system cannot exist in a random market And a coin is a random process.
Shit, I can't insert the link to the monitoring. I will describe it in words. Trading has been going on since 2012. The drawdown is 10%. 90% of trades are profitable. Stops are used.
Whether the market happens or not is another matter, as is finding an advantage there. Why martingale or other tricks then, if you already have an advantage (say 60% of the time, you guess, then go for a fixed lot and don't worry about it). The question is whether martingale can help in cases where we don't have any advantage, like in a coin game or something like that.
I have roughly equal stop and take. About 70% of profitable trades. And with one doubling the profit increases and a lot. If there is no series of losses greater than one, then it's still like all 100% of the trades are profitable. What system would give such a result? In reality it is not so rosy, but close to it. Sometimes there is a series of 2-3 losses in a row. After them I sigh and continue trading. But the overall profit of the system is still good. It is much easier to find a system with 50/50 ratio of profitable and losing trades than 90/10.
The problem is that there is no guarantee that there will only be three losses in a row at the most. There might be 5 or 6. Again, again, if you have 70% successful trades, you don't need anything, you don't need any more profits, you should be a millionaire very soon anyway. I mean, the problem is that there is no 70% of successful trades, you have it now and you don't have it tomorrow. That's not good, if only it were, there's always 50% in a coin and you can test on it.
Man, I've been hesitant to run it in real time for a long time. I mean, it's a martingale. It's bad. That's what everyone says. I ran it on the demo, though. The results were good. There's a lot of prejudice among traders.
The problem is that there is no guarantee that there will only be three losses in a row at the most. There might be 5 or 6. Again, again, if you have 70% successful trades then you don't need anything, you don't need any more profits, you should be a millionaire very soon anyway. My point is that the problem is that there is no 70% success rate, you have it now and you don't have it tomorrow. That's not good, if only if, but in a coin there is always 50%, and you can test on it.
I will not argue. I have written everything I wanted to.
Why martingale or other tricks if you already have an advantage (say 60% guessing and then raking in money with a fixed lot and not worrying about it)?
To bypass the native limits you need some reason. Martingale (whatever that means) as an excuse for yourself - I'm not an inadequate gambler, it's just a system...
I have roughly equal stop and take. 70% of profitable trades. And with one double the profit increases and strongly. If there is no series of losses more than one, it's like all 100% trades are profitable.
So why would you keep a frozen margin for martingale while the TS is highly reliable? This means that the risks are calculated incorrectly, the lot size is underestimated, the deposit's efficiency does not match the possibilities of the TS.