How do you improve signal reliability by all five? - page 7
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
What the hell is a recovery? Is there no Russian equivalent of this word?
Apparently, the author meant Recovery Factor = RF = Recovery Factor.
By the way, it is counted incorrectly in the screenshot fromMickey Moose, because at hypothetical zero drawdown it should be infinite, not zero.
What the hell is a recovery? Isn't there a Russian equivalent of that word?
That's just the way I'm used to it. Well, recovery, what's the difference... The point is the same.
It's a good indicator. But it seems to me that the real Equity in the account is better. Because it shows what the signal provider thinks. And who knows more about the signal than the ISP itself?
I don't believe in a no drawdown TS, when you open the first position, the account is always in drawdown, and then more. Therefore, FS can never be infinite.
If we measure it by Equity (means). And if we look at the balance we may be without drawdown. But again, this is until the first good counter-trend.
It was you who did not hold at zero, but failed to calculate the FS. Were you unable to determine the maximum drawdown? I don't believe in trading without drawdown.
And if you do, what would it affect?
Apparently, the author meant Recovery Factor = RF = Recovery Factor.
By the way, it is incorrectly calculated in the screenshot fromMickey Moose, because with hypothetical zero drawdown it should be infinite, not zero.
Even hypothetically the drawdown cannot be zero, so, FS is a necessary and sufficient parameter for efficiency and reliability of any TS. Personally, I reach its maximum value on the history and do not pay attention to any other trading parameters.
And if you believe it, what effect would that have?
I would have to be a fool and inadequate to believe it.
That is, if we measure it by Equity (means). And if we measure it by equity, we can do it without drawdown. But again, this is until the first good counter-trend.
Balance is nothing, funds are everything. Balance is a harmful parameter, the sooner you forget about it, the better. You should anticipate or detect a counter-trend before it seriously wrecks your deposit. On the other hand, counter-trends can, more often than not, be an ally of the global trend.
Balance is nothing, funds are everything. Balance is a harmful parameter, the sooner you forget about it, the better. You should anticipate or detect a counter-trend before it seriously wrecks your deposit. On the other hand, counter-trends can, more often than not, be an ally to a global trend.
No, a balance is also necessary.
First of all, maintenance and withdrawal of positions is as important as entering. And the balance is just talking about closed positions.
Secondly, the balance shows the result, and funds show the current state, and in funds, as a rule, there is a lot of "noise".
That's why both funds and balance are important. This emphasis on means appeared because people are too fond of dangerous MM MM games - Martingale, averaging, and other tricks, which greatly "tear off" means and balance. Of course, if the funds are very different from the balance - they are much more important than the balance. But, this difference should not be large in a normal TS.
Finally, calculating funds is much more time consuming and fraught with errors.
So I would not say "balance is nothing, means are everything". Rather, "every job has its own tools".
No, balance is also necessary.
First, escorting and exiting positions is no less important than entering. As a matter of fact, they are not even more important, and the balance is just a measure of closed positions.
Secondly, the balance shows the result, and funds show the current state, and in funds, as a rule, there is a lot of "noise".
That's why both funds and balance are important. This emphasis on means appeared because people are too fond of dangerous MM MM games - Martingale, averaging, and other tricks, which greatly "tear off" means and balance. Of course, if the funds are very different from the balance - they are much more important than the balance. But, this difference should not be large in a normal TS.
Finally, calculating funds is much more time consuming and fraught with errors.
So I would not say "balance is nothing, means are everything". Rather, "every job has its own tools".
George, the brokerage company I work with has completely eliminated the concept of "balance" from their analyses and reports, they only use "means" and the confusion has disappeared. I am sure everyone will do so soon.
George, the DC where I work has completely eliminated the concept of "balance" from their analyses and reports, they only use "funds" and the confusion has disappeared. I am sure everyone will do so soon.
They won't.
A balance, is real money, it can be both withdrawn and entered. And funds is virtual money, the state of which is changing all the time and depends on the current profit (both minus and plus).
Funds are only counted when there are open positions.