From theory to practice - page 1662
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
balance > equity=1500-1%
The price will go in such a way that this inequality is reached.
close the loss, the bar will go down, i.e. equity=1500-loss1-1%
and so on:
эквити=1500-убыток1-убыток2-...-убытокN-1%
the same for profit
but still the equity will be equal to the initial one (before the last profit) - 1%
Prices for different traders in one brokerage company will be different? This is a potential opportunity for arbitrage.
That's all well and good, but the price only goes according to one law, which depends directly on the money in the depo, or more precisely, on equity.
I couldn't agree more. If I understand you correctly, of course.
I would clarify - depends on the total turnover of funds on the exchange. Which is what...?
Do I understand correctly, that I am ready to repeat in real life what YOU wrote to me? You can also publicly apologize - I'm not an animal.
And about the "I cheated a little" - it's not an accidental phenomenon, it's systematic. Only YOU, because of your blind faith in authority, seem unable to understand it. You need to have an independent mind for that, uncle))
Um... I apologise, I was wrong.
However, please stay out of the thread with irrelevant comments. If you see that I am wrong about something (for example, the uneven reading of quotes depending on the volatility of the process) - point it out and justify it. Don't indiscriminately sling mud. OK?
Will prices be different for different traders in the same DC? This is a potential opportunity for arbitrage.
I couldn't agree more. If I understand you correctly, of course.
I would clarify - it depends on the total turnover of funds on the exchange. Which is what...?
Yura Asulenko left the forum when I told him in private how to trade using the example of MOEX.
He understood that everything is simple and at the same time he understood that it is not interesting and there is nothing to read.
Really?!
But it seems to be true - he just wrote me at a certain point in time that he understood everything on the market and disappeared for good.
However!
Really?!
And it seems true - he just texted me at one point in time to say he understood everything on the market and disappeared for good.
However!
analyse (from my message to Jura), the truth without explanation will be:
Here is the result of my suffering for a month:
1 line - time interval of the day
3 line - frequency of quotation reading (once every specified number of seconds).
What do they give? Well, this is a secret for now. I will tell you if I will get some real money.
All right, see you tonight.
Read it, think it through.
Um... I apologise, I was wrong.
However, please stay out of the thread with irrelevant comments. If you see that I am wrong about something (for example, the uneven reading of quotes depending on the volatility of the process) - point it out and justify it. Don't indiscriminately sling mud. OK?
OK, apology accepted.
I'm not in the habit of sloping. It's just rudeness (both in real life and online) that pisses me off. If you're not going to be rude, you won't see me here. OK?
And about right/wrong in your TS - how many times did I tell you before starting another test that you would lose on the course? That's how many times you failed. Is there a pattern?) With this approach it's inevitable (and not a fluke) - just a matter of time.
I'm not saying this out of spite, but because I have a deeper understanding of market processes and I see a systematic error, about which I said earlier. OK, if you want to keep banging your head against the wall, that's up to you.