The most banal trading strategy - page 17
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
Dear forum members, we have all become convinced that the market is mainly ruled by chance. The search for patterns has not yet led to variable success, again due to the interference of chance.
Let's try to find out the potential of possible success and depths of abyss in case of failure of the most incredible trivial strategies, one of which is to stupidly open N buy and sell positions simultaneously on different TFs with the same or different TP and SL, as well as the initial deposit D.
On the history we should try to optimize N, TF, TP and SL, D. Perhaps many traders have already tried to analyze this strategy, then we will ask them to share their opinions. Who tried this strategy in practice?
Yusuf, you are BEAUTIFUL! No kidding. Respect. There is, the point of your URM https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/250
The point is, you just have to interpret its signals correctly, that's all!
No, I never make multidirectional deals, as I am sure that is nonsense. One more thing: in 1997, I made deals with real delivery. Bought for a billion, paid for a billion.
You weren't talked about, the man suggested the idea of simultaneously selling a stock and buying futures on that stock, and having some sort of positive swap plus, ending up with zero on the buy and sell, remaining in the plus side of the swaps.
1) Gore "physicist", I bring to your attention that antimatter is also baryonic matter, or rather, can be such, for example, an antiproton. (I wrote to you, don't show your illiteracy).
2) Your unfortunate coefficients, I have already pointed out to you twice, I point out for the third time in this form.
Z=K/EURGBP, X=K/(EURUSD), Y=K/(GBPUSD), where K is an arbitrary multiplier, i.e. the ratios stand for the lot sizes in this multicurrency lock and they are of course defined to the exact multiplier.
3) Well, the fact that you do not understand how to apply mathematics, I have already written about it, I can not help here, I can only advise to study.
How many times can we teach you, eh? Aren't you ashamed?
1. I didn't mention the antiproton at all, we were talking about the positron, stop demonstrating illiteracy. Antimatter is not baryonic matter, it is baryonic antimatter, it is obvious, to the exact convention of what to call matter and what to call it antimatter.
2. My unfortunate coefficients you twice incorrectly specified, what I informed you about. I report for the third time: Z depends on time (after opening a trade it changes), while X and Y do not depend on time (after opening a trade they do not change), you have it wrong.
3. So it shows that you don't understand arithmetic or physics. I can advise you to start with an ABC book.
I don't think so, there is a young man here, he is mouthing off to prove that he has invented a castle that has a positive swap, but of course he won't show this castle to anyone on pain of death.
Grandson, I am probably older than you, don't humiliate yourself :-)
And I'm not proving anything to anybody, and I'm not going to. I am only stating the essence of the matter, and then those who have brains will understand.
Grandson, I'm probably older than you, don't humiliate yourself :-)
And I'm not proving anything to anyone, and I don't intend to. I am only stating the gist of things, and then those who have brains will understand.
Isn't that the strategy you have in your profile?
Isn't the signal in your profile from this strategy?
Not that one, don't worry. What do you want to say?
How many times can you be taught, eh? Aren't you ashamed?
1 I did not mention the antiproton at all, we were talking about the positron, stop demonstrating illiteracy. Antimatter is not baryonic matter, it is baryonic antimatter, it is obvious, with the convention of what to call matter and what to call antimatter respectively.
2. My unfortunate coefficients you twice incorrectly specified, what I informed you about. I report for the third time: Z depends on time (after opening a trade it changes), while X and Y do not depend on time (after opening a trade they do not change), you do not.
3. So it is shown that you don't understand arithmetic or physics. I can advise you to start with a primer.
Hence, Z depends on time (after opening a trade it changes), but the coefficients in your multicurrency lock is the size of lots.
Gentlemen, not only does this "gaffer" claim to have found a multi-currency lock whose resulting swap is positive, but it turns out that in this lock the lot size of one of the currencies must change over time, i.e. you have to keep paying the spread to change the lot.
Isn't the signal in your profile from this strategy?
So, Z depends on time (it changes after opening a trade), but the coefficients in your multicurrency lock are lot sizes.
Gentlemen, not only does this "gaffer" claim to have found a multi-currency lock whose resulting swap is positive, but it turns out that in this lock, the lot size of one of the currencies must change over time, i.e. you have to constantly pay more spread for the change of the lot.
Hence, Z depends on time (it changes after opening a trade), but the coefficients in your multicurrency lock are lot sizes.
Gentlemen, not only that this "grandpa" says that he has found a multicurrency lock, the resulting swap is positive, but it turns out that in this lock the lot volume of one of the currencies must change with time, i.e. we must constantly pay the spread for lot changes.
If you had at least a small brain, you would realize that in the expression Z*Volume*delta(EURGBP), where Volume is the volume of the lot (position), equal to one in my equation, and delta(EURGBP) is the EURGBP price change, The multiplication of delta(EURGBP) by Z = GBPUSD is automatic, since the result of EURGBP price change is expressed in GBP pips (more expensive than USD pips), and its conversion into USD pips only requires (mental) multiplication by GBPUSD. However, not only are you incapable of getting to this yourself, you refuse to even read this, already written repeatedly by me above. Instead, when you hear the bell and don't understand what it's all about, you fantasize about some lot changes...
As I mentioned above, lot sizes are two coefficients: X and Y (EURGBP lot size equals 1), due to which the result of a EURUSD and GBPUSD deal is always equal in modulo and opposite in sign to EURGBP, i.e. the product of GBPUSD*1*delta(EURGBP), if the result of this deal is expressed in USD pips.
+
Your level of intelligence is similar to what this "+" demonstrates...
P.S. Let us remind once again the equation for those readers of this thread, who have a brain: GBPUSD*1*delta(EURGBP) = X*delta(EURUSD) - Y*delta(GBPUSD) (here we will clearly write the unit, which has the sense of EURGBP lot size, for those, who cannot immediately understand that it can be omitted).
P.P.S. I will make another regal gift: I will inform that X = 1. That is the ring has the following form: GBPUSD*1*delta(EURGBP) = 1*delta(EURUSD) - Y*delta(GBPUSD) and we only need to find one coefficient (volume of lots) to form it: coefficients (volumes of lots) of EURGBP and EURUSD are already known, they are equal to one.