Price signals, what will happen to them? - page 10
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
Doposit and Balance are not the same thing?
Something is obviously wrong with our interpretation/terminology.
Do you think there are no such people? There are such virtuosos, such masters, so masterful at creating fortunes, yet their income is many times lower than the capital they hold. Although technically it seems impossible.
I'm just inclining you to forget the word "balance", it is always possible to replace it with a more adequate word and/or concept.
"Balance" -- the definition of the word -- is "equilibrium".
An extremely accurate name for a point of reference. And don't substitute it with other terms like "deposit", which only "hog the limelight".
In fact, to derive a formula, you must first define the economic essence of the index.
If drawdown is considered from the balance, the essence of this index is to show the use of funds [in case of price movement against us] or % loss.
If we have "profit" by trade positions, the drawdown is equal to zero, while the balance level is a breakeven point.
If we calculate the drawdown from the maximal amount reached - what is the point of this indicator - what does it show?
"Balance" -- the definition of the word -- is "equilibrium".
An extremely accurate name for a point of reference. And don't substitute it with other terms like "deposit", which only "hog the limelight".
In fact, to derive a formula, you must first define the economic essence of the index.
If drawdown is considered from the balance, the essence of this index is to show the use of funds [in case of price movement against us] or % loss.
If we have "profit" by trade positions, the drawdown is equal to zero; the balance level is considered as a break-even point.
If we consider the drawdown from the maximum funds gained, what is the point of this indicator?
It does not show anything, as the indicators on the history - the virtual lost profit, which makes no sense.
It doesn't show anything, and neither do the indicators on the history - under-received virtual profits, which make no sense at all.
The drawdown indicator that Yusuf cited -- it is in the statistics -- is not Yusuf's idea.
And to say whether it makes sense or not -- you have to understand what it shows and how to use it in trade analysis.
I use the drawdown of my balance and when I have a 50% drawdown, I understand that my balance is enough for exactly the same negative movement.
Any indicator should be of practical value.
How Yusuf understands and what conclusions he draws -- if his showing a drawdown from funds will show 50% -- that would be interesting to know.
By the way, in the signal service -- the indicator "increment" is not clear to me at all and I do not understand how to use it in practice.
That is, when I look at the "growth" of 2900%, I do not understand what these figures show, I do not understand what exactly has increased by 29 times.
Moreover, if the "growth" is balance sheet growth -- and investors see a 2900% growth for the year -- then they actually have to demand from the trader a 29 times growth for the year of invested funds -- and if there is no such a thing, then the trader is a whitewash and a cheat.
"Balance" -- the definition of the word -- is "equilibrium".
An extremely accurate name for a point of reference. And don't substitute it with other terms like "deposit", which only "hog the limelight".
In fact, to derive a formula, you must first define the economic essence of the index.
If drawdown is considered from the balance, the essence of this index is to show the use of funds [in case of price movement against us] or % loss.
If we have "profit" by trade positions, the drawdown is equal to zero; the balance level is considered as a break-even point.
If we calculate the drawdown from the maximum funds reached, what is the essence of this indicator - what does it show?
1. Balance, in this case, has nothing to do with equilibrium. In economics, balance is the equilibrium between cash (physical and monetary) -- ACTIVE -- and the sources of those funds -- PASSIVE. A state of the financial system is considered normal when the ACTIV = PASSIV is met, and this state is called a balance. As we can see, balance has nothing to do with the funds themselves and their sources and is a qualitative indicator - balance is either there or - it is not, like, you can't be a bit pregnant. Here, they are trying to impart quantitative properties to the word balance, which is inadmissible;
2. the balance can be negative and this can be considered a "point of reference"?
3. See point 1;
4. See para. 2;
5. Balance = Means - (minus) results of open positions. Means does not depend on the results of open positions. Here too, the balance is inferior to the means in terms of informativeness;
6. Shows the potential ability of the TS to make such losses, albeit dynamically.
Yes, they will be free.
We are gradually improving the service and will soon have more interesting features for subscribers.
It would be better to make cent signals paid, but more expensive. Three times more expensive than regular signals.
Right now, the minimum subscription fee for conventional signals is $30.
It would be reasonable to set the minimum subscription fee for cent signals at 90$.
Subscribers may choose what subscription makes sense to them.
Come on hot guys, let's count the drawdown from the initial deposit ;)
The drawdown rate that Yusuf cited - it is in the statistics - is not Yusuf's idea.
And to say whether it makes sense or not -- you have to understand what it shows and how to use it in trade analysis.
I use the drawdown of my balance and when I have a 50% drawdown, I understand that my balance is enough for exactly the same negative movement.
Any indicator should be of practical value.
How Yusuf understands and what conclusions he draws -- if his showing a drawdown from funds will show 50% -- that would be interesting to know.
By the way, in the signal service -- the indicator "increment" is not clear to me at all and I do not understand how to use it in practice.
That is, when I look at the "growth" of 2900%, I do not understand what these figures show, I do not understand what exactly has increased by 29 times.
Moreover, if the "growth" is balance growth -- and investors see a 2900% growth for the year -- then they, in fact, should demand from the trader a 29 times growth for the year of invested funds -- and if there is no such a thing, then the trader is a whitewash and a cheat.
1. In this case, the balance has nothing to do with balance. In economics, the balance is the equilibrium between the cash (tangible and monetary) - ACTIVE and the sources of these funds - PASSIVE. A state of the financial system is considered normal when the ACTIV = PASSIV is met, and this state is called a balance. As we can see, balance has nothing to do with the funds themselves and their sources and is a qualitative indicator - balance is either there or - it is not, like, you can't be a bit pregnant. Here they are trying to impart quantitative properties to the word balance, which is not acceptable;
I agree about the term "balance" -- "deposit" is probably more accurate.
When assigning a deposit, one should always be guided by the maximum drawdown from the maximum funds reached in the entire available history of the instrument, because, there is a possibility of this situation repeating itself.
If the money management is based on the deposit, the maximum drawdown should be estimated based on the deposit, because trading involves both positive and negative movement.
If the money is managed by means, the drawdown should be estimated on the basis of the means.