Criteria for getting signals to the top - page 27
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
The Sahar signal still exists. Just worked out according to this scheme: from September to February with one series of trades a month I closed only about 60% of profits on the plus side. In February I joined monitoring. My trading style has changed dramatically. Switched to martingale averaging. But he managed to keep it for about half a year. Gained over 1,000 subscribers over the summer. Do you think I managed to earn at least 10% of it as a freelancer?
A parallel trader from Hungary also managed to gain more than 1000 subscribers at the end of summer.
Signals are a good earner.
"Shearing the Sheep.
But, alas, there aren't enough rams for everyone.
Attempts are being made. At least a year ago I heard that the speculative markets were going to be taken over in earnest.
I also read about it. And the self-employed (or rather, the unemployed) with penny incomes they also want to take by the gills. Only poor oligarchs, victims of sanctions, will be sponsored from the federal budget, exempt from taxes, etc., so that they somehow have enough to eat;).
"Sheep shearing".
But, alas, there are not enough sheep for everyone.
George, it's unfair to call novice subscribers sheep - many simply have no idea that they encounter professional frauds. They trust mql stats that are publicly available in real time and do not understand the catch hiding behind the nice figures. And mql rating and statistics system leaves many loopholes for unscrupulous managers to cheat investors. This is very unfortunate, in fact, so the rating system should be adjusted, and first of all in terms of cutting off all statistics on managers' accounts before the registration of a signal on the website. Let them have at least 100500% profit for the previous months or years - all figures should be calculated only from the day when the account is available for monitoring.
George, it is unfair to call novice subscribers sheep - many simply have no idea that they encounter professional crooks. They trust mql statistics that is publicly available in real time and do not understand the catch behind nice numbers. And mql rating and statistics system leaves many loopholes for unscrupulous managers to cheat investors. This is very unfortunate, in fact, so the rating system should be adjusted, and first of all in terms of cutting off all statistics on managers' accounts before the registration of a signal on the website. Let them have even 100500% profit for the previous months or years - all figures should be calculated only from the day when the account became available for monitoring.
If only "scammers"...
Fraudsters can be blamed, prosecuted...
In this case, there is no cheating. We take a coin, toss it, throw ten "eagles" in a row (the same is possible), and declare that "we learned how to throw an eagle" - perfectly sincere, not intending to deceive anyone.
In our hearts we understand that it's random luck and it can end at any moment, but as long as luck is with us - it makes sense to seize the moment. So we are not going to risk a big sum, but suggest that others take advantage of it. If our luck continues, we will earn everything. If it does, others will lose and we will gain.
I don't see "cheating" here. But I see stupidity on the part of subscribers.
The ONLY criterion to evaluate the signal is the real Equity in its account. Only this figure shows what the signal provider really thinks about his signal. No other indicators will show you that. You can have a wonderful Sharpe, Profit Factor, Profit, or even my integral estimation... But all this tells us how the trading was performed on history. Equity, on the other hand, allows seeing what the provider has in mind.
A signal is not worth more than 1% of that amount per month. And anything you pay more than that is you're paying 'at random', which can turn away from you with no problem. And when it does, you don't blame the signal provider. You have not only paid too much for the signal but also put too big a deposit on it. Is that the provider's fault? The provider was only "sheep herding" - no one was pulling you into the "sheep herd".
A signal is not worth more than 1% of that amount per month
Then do you think it is necessary to subscribe only to PAMM accounts? In my opinion, if the Equity is 1000 and the signal yield is 10% per month, then a subscription for 30 is quite acceptable.
Then do you think it is necessary to subscribe only to PAMM accounts? In my opinion, if the Equity is 1000 and the signal yield is 10% per month, then the subscription for 30 is acceptable.
Why? If the Equity is 1000 - it is silly to pay more than $10 per month for such a signal. But, if you want to take a big risk - you can pay $100.
In PAMMs the main difference is that you do not pay "for nothing". And you share what you have earned, if you have it. In general, PAMMs are more "fair" from the provider's side than the signal.
Yes, if "crooks"...
Fraudsters can be charged, prosecuted...
In this case, there's no cheating. We take a coin, toss it, throw ten "eagles" in a row (the same is possible), and declare that "we learned how to throw an eagle" - perfectly sincerely, without intending to deceive anyone.
In our hearts we understand that it's random luck and it can end at any moment, but as long as luck is with us - it makes sense to seize the moment. So we are not going to risk a big sum, but suggest that others take advantage of it. If our luck continues, we will earn everything. If it does, others will lose and we will gain.
I don't see "cheating" here. But I see stupidity on the part of subscribers.
The ONLY criterion to evaluate the signal is the real Equity in its account. Only this figure shows what the signal provider really thinks about his signal. No other indicators will show you that. You can have a wonderful Sharpe, Profit Factor, Profit, or even my integral estimation... But all this tells us how the trading was performed on history. Equity allows us to see what is in the provider's head.
A signal is not worth more than 1% of that amount per month. And anything you pay more than that is you're paying 'at random', which can turn away from you with no problem. And when it does, you don't blame the signal provider. You have not only paid too much for the signal but also put too big a deposit on it. Is that the provider's fault? The ISP was only "sheep-raising" - no one was pulling you into the "sheep flock".
How is it not cheating? The signal is being passed off as a highly profitable grail. The provider knows 100% that he's going to leak it. Knows it's likely to happen within a few months. And knows he's passing off his cent account as a dollar account. And he's risking a bottle of beer at most. At the same time, the subscribers he defrauds risk sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. Such providers should have their balls cut off so they don't reproduce, but you're talking about a nickel. There's no element of coincidence here. The provider knowingly drains his subscribers' money.
How is that not fraud? The signal's being passed off as a high-profit grail. Provider knows 100% that he's gonna blow it. Knows it's likely to happen within a few months. And knows he's passing off his cent account as a dollar account. And he's risking a bottle of beer at most. At the same time, the subscribers he defrauds risk sometimes tens of thousands of dollars. Such providers should have their balls cut off so they don't reproduce, but you're talking about a nickel. There's no element of coincidence here. The provider knowingly drains his subscribers' money.
Well, when a cent account is passed off as a dollar account, then yes, there is an element of fraud.
But otherwise... Who's asking subscribers to bet thousands of dollars at random, where the provider doesn't even risk $100?
I've been holding out for a long time, I didn't want to write anything - but this "Equity - and charge 1% for subscription" pisses me off a lot.
Why not 0.01%?
Have you looked at interest rates on loans? And on mortgages?
And if you default on a loan, what's the penalty?
Do you go out and see the prices?
If there are VIP traders at this forum and are willing/maybe able to deposit from $ 10,000 on their signal, they are very few, I bet - if we compare with ordinary people who are in the majority here, especially in the Russian segment
And now, if a man poured $100 on his trading account and put a $30 subscription - to shoot him? To deprive him of even the slightest chance to be among those people who can afford to put in 10K?
It's awful how bloodthirsty these people are.
There is a saying:Live and let liveI've been holding out for a long time, I didn't want to write anything - but this "Equity - and charge 1% for subscription" pisses me off a lot.
Why not 0.01%?
Have you looked at interest rates on loans? And on mortgages?
And if you default on a loan, what's the penalty?
Do you go out and see the prices?
That is why the interest on loans is so high, because people have so much money that they do not know where to put it...
They can buy two flats and give one to the bank for a mortgage... Who can blame them? The interest rate is not unreasonable.
If people have a lot of money, they can afford to throw it away, but it's not the smart thing to do. You can do it if you have a lot of money. But it is not a reasonable thing to do.
So here too - more than 1% of the Equity for a monthly subscription is too expensive. Precisely because it is clear from the Equity amount that the provider is going to drain the signal and paying more for it is also unreasonable.