From theory to practice - page 118
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
You should not choose island DCs. You should take ONLY on the basis of broker banks and those with European licences. And this risk can be neglected.
Apart from that there are other risks.
But the risks of instability of the model itself are in our hands. You just have to always keep this in mind and direct your efforts towards solving this problem.
I think clients of the now defunct Alpari UK in London could elaborate on the European licences. They got 14 cents a pound after two years of waiting, and could probably clarify what it costs to neglect those risks.
Quite right, there are many risks. Let 10, and one of them, one is entitled to think, is in our hands. Let each of these 10 risks be a little, 1%. The probability of failure of the system as a whole is about 10%, 90% of the time it works. Then, after spending a few years and having reduced the risk of model instability by as much as 2 times, we can raise the reliability of the system from 90 to 90.5%. Pretty cool, eh?
I think clients of the now defunct Alpari UK in London could elaborate on the European licences. They got 14 cents a pound after two years of waiting, and could probably clarify what it costs to neglect those risks.
Quite right, there are many risks. Let 10, and one of them, one is entitled to think, is in our hands. Let each of these 10 risks be a little, 1%. The probability of failure of the system as a whole is about 10%, 90% of the time it works. Then, after spending a few years and having reduced the risks of model instability by as much as 2 times, we can raise the reliability of the system from 90 to 90.5%. Isn't that great?
A model that doesn't work is a 100% risk.
PS.
The DC you named is insular and cannot be discussed.
A model that doesn't work is a 100% risk.
PS.
The DC you named is insular and cannot be discussed.
A stably non-functioning model is usually not used for real trading. And the risks do not arise.
Let the address of Alpari (UK) Limited 201 Bishopsgate London, EC2M 3AB United Kingdom be on the small banana island of the UK, fine. However, I wouldn't argue with the view that the European peninsula gives bad licences either. It's a matter of taste.
As long as the matter is the same and there are no deals, I will begin to teach my esteemed Vladimir, for he has grasped the root of t and does not want to retreat.
I tell him to read Shelepin's articles, except for inserts about Fibonacci numbers (obviously, imposed to him by his unreasonable child) - he does not read.
See page 9 of part 1.
For pseudo-Markov processes:
The variance S^2=c*t*l, where:
l - mean value of jumps
t - observation time
s - jump frequencies in time t (number of ticks)
By jumps we mean tick increments of price.
We have:
S^2 = (N/t)*t*mean(|Ask(t)-Ask(t-1)|) = N*mean(|Ask(t)-Ask(t-1)|)
S = sqrt(N*mean(|Ask(t)-Ask(t-1)|)), where N is the number of ticks during observation time t.
Now, Vladimir, do you understand the difference with your root of t???
By the way, I've just described one of my algorithms, which is still under development.
Where am I to fall back on results obtained by simply measuring real data?
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/221552/page19#comment_6168925"Before multiplication, the values on the curves shown differed by a factor of 18; after multiplication, they differed by a factor of 20. It's about the law of the square root."
To the unreal ones, is it? Or at least away from the real ones, as in the Shelepins papers you recommend? They also, like you, do not agree to solve specific problems. You aim at destroying retail forex, while Shelepin L.A. does not even agree on that, he is solving no less than planetary issues, figuring out the philosophical foundations of the universe
4. Kharitonov A.S., Shelepin L.A. "Equilibrium distributions in the theory of non-Markov processes". Short communications on physics. 1996, № 7,8, с.79-83.
14. Azroyants E.A., Kharitonov A.S., Shelepin L.A. "Non-Markov Processes as a New Paradigm", Philosophy Issues, 1999, ¹7, pp. 94-104.
28. Kharitonov A.S., Shelepin L.A. "Principle of golden proportion as a characteristic of processes with memory". In: "Life Strategy in Conditions of Planetary Ecological Crisis" 2002, Vol. 2,378-385.
Together with the author of fundamental works such as
10. A.S. Kharitonov "Harmony of the world and conditions of its sustainable development on the basis of the golden proportion rule". Sbornik: Papers of X1 MFI-97, Informational Problems of Ecology. Moscow, 1997, p.7.
24. A.S. Kharitonov, "System of equations to describe processes in nature cycle," Engineering Physics , 2001, No.1, pp. 4-5.
49. Kharitonov A.S. "Formation of Social Systems and the Golden Section Fractal". Scientific and Methodological Collection of the Faculty of Social Control. М., 2008. С.77-82.
http://www.goldensectionclub.net/publications/kharitonov
Kant and Hegel cry in the dressing room, Engels with his Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State did not even pass the qualifying round...It doesn't matter whether you separated or not - I was just stating my thoughts.
Why do you think that the results obtained here can be proof of anything?
That's the whole problem!
What's more, the proof of the future is not in the tester, it's not in the demo or the real - all these results say: this is how it was. And from this "was" it does not at all follow the future, and this future is based only on faith and hope: the future will be the same as the past. And on what basis?
If, for whatever reason, we do not use the (very extensive) available knowledge, then the first question in relation to our favourite idea is: does this idea have a predictive power? If it does, why?
A stably dysfunctional model is not usually used for real trading. Nor does it generate risk.
Let the address of Alpari (UK) Limited 201 Bishopsgate London, EC2M 3AB United Kingdom be on the small banana island of the UK, fine. However, I wouldn't argue with the view that the European peninsula gives bad licences either. It's a matter of taste.
I do not know about this kitchen in London. But our people have long found out that if people are not persuaded to register in Bermuda, they may easily make a reservation that you are not in Bermuda at all. Even quite a real show bill that he is a real patriotic, law-abiding and disinterested resident of Russia. With his main account in the same bermuda. There are plenty of more sophisticated schemes out there. We don't have a lot of experience with scams. I don't know if I can trust the opening after all the recent moves with him.
The main method to reduce these risks - trade with dozens of brokerage companies. Place a minimum of funds with each of them and watch out that profits do not grow to unreasonable size. Withdraw funds in time. At the same time we discover that the brokerage company does not want to work with such a toxic client. Then we part with him peacefully and let the other household members trade with him. Then the relatives. Friends. Acquaintances. Then forget about him for three years. Fortunately, there are two thousand forex companies with Metatrader alone, and the world has not come to a head with it.
About the ribbing, I think it's fantasy. We also think that the brokerage firms value their reputations. Or do you have the facts?
From your reasoning, I think it is appropriate to dwell on the question of whether one should trade hands and consider this following "some" as serious. Or should trading be automated for serious work. The forum we are on is dedicated to means of trade automation. Look how many people want to become "Gorynych Serpents". These are the forum members. And you are here too. And it does not make any difference if the automated trading is performed in one brokerage company with 3-30 TPs or in 40 ones with thousands of TPs. This is not a value judgment, but my trading experience since 2009.
Regarding the FRMC. "The Commission for the Regulation of Financial Market Participants" disappeared from the register of legal entities of the Russian Federation on 04 September 2017. As a result of quite deliberate management action. Judging by your words, you have no idea on what basis this structure worked. Well, no need to make things up. Now even the former documents (the Charter of the KROUFR, several editions of the Regulations of the Arbitration Commission and the Rules of consideration of claims) are nowhere to be found.
P.S. While writing this message, disappeared on which I reacted. And I did not quote you. I will leave it as it is.
From your reasoning, I think it is appropriate to dwell on whether you should trade with your hands and consider it, following "some", as serious. Or should trading be automated for serious work. The forum we are on is dedicated to means of trade automation. Look how many people want to become "Gorynych Serpents". These are the forum members. And you are here too. And it does not make any difference if the automated trading is performed in one brokerage company with 3-30 TPs or in 40 ones with thousands of TPs. This is not a value judgment, but my trading experience since 2009.
Regarding the FRMC. "The Commission for the Regulation of Financial Market Participants" disappeared from the register of legal entities of the Russian Federation on 04 September 2017. As a result of quite deliberate management action. Judging by your words, you have no idea on what basis this structure worked. Well, no need to make things up. Now even the former documents (the Charter of the KROUFR, several editions of the Regulations of the Arbitration Commission and the Rules of consideration of claims) are nowhere to be found.
P.S. While writing this message, disappeared that on which I reacted. And I did not quote you. I leave it as it is.
The main method of reducing the risks you mentioned is to trade with dozens of DCs.