Is it possible to create a fully automatic (semi-automatic) scalping signal with a return of more than 5% per month and a drawdown of no more than 5%? - page 6
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
1.5 - 2 years with an 80% return? Can be 2 - first year show 80%, second year gather investors and die.
Any TS can do that. They all can). Nothing lasts forever.
I think the real life of the strategy is somewhere between 1.5 and 2 years. The market changes over time and significantly. You can't even play with your hands the way you did 2 years ago. But hands are less noticeable, as the adaptation-learning process is slow and as the play goes on. And systems on logic will gradually lose their adequacy over time.
Investors don't bother me). And if anyone cares, improve the strategy - 1.5 years in reserve. You don't even have to hurry).
You are talking nonsense. I just needed the signal myself to see how it works in general. It wasn't intended to signal something to anybody from the very beginning, I have just put a knowingly losing robot on it and forgot about it.
You're already fed up with this "nonsense". Can you communicate as an adult?
If you need a signal for yourself, you usually put the bill on the flyswatter, as it has more capacity for analysis. And if they monitor it here, they don't make it public.
That's the first point.
And the second - if you say that there are long-term profitable systems with a 5% return per month and a maximum drawdown of 5% (no matter what, scalper or not, manual or automated), please provide proof. Show real monitoring of your systems. I think that in 10 years of trading you have at least one such account. Otherwise, you would have no reason to call absolutely sober and logical thoughts "nonsense".
Thank you, I look forward to it!
And if possible, why can't I find it?) or can a successful over the distance scalping signal only be on manual control?
I used to do scalping for a few years (did it as a trader, as I am not a programmer), and I know - that for quite a long period of time (a year - two) it was possible (there are such advisors) - I do not mean future ... not exactly 5% (more) ... but stable enough.
But they were also created so that you (and I, and many) cannot find them.
That is, if you can't find them - that's fine.
----------------
My experience (as advice) is.
Search for different, valuable for you or rare some things by names of coders, who coded them and/or signalers and/or Market vendors.
In other words - start with the person: what his trading systems are, what his specialization is (martingale, or he mostly codes classic trading or something else), if he posts here on the forum, what he posts and so on.
That is - information collection.
And then, through the coder (about whom you will know much in his professional plan) - reach some of his development (and which one - you will know by then). It can be free developments.
And if otherwise as now - not enough life to trawl all over the Internet, not trusting anyone and trying everything in a row.
You're already fed up with this "nonsense". Can you communicate as an adult?
If you need a signal for yourself, you usually put the bill on a flyswatter, as it has more capacity for analysis. And if they monitor it here, they don't make it public.
That's the first point.
And the second - if you say that there are long-term profitable systems with a 5% return per month and a maximum drawdown of 5% (no matter what, scalper or not, manual or automated), please provide proof. Show real monitoring of your systems. I think that in 10 years of trading you have at least one such account. Otherwise, you would have no reason to call absolutely sober and logical thoughts "nonsense".
Thank you, I look forward to it!
1. Why should I care who does how it "usually" works? I've looked at how it works from the inside - for myself, out of curiosity, nothing more.
2. No accounts can serve as proof. After all, that's what crooks do: they set up a hundred accounts in which robots trade differently (not by chance, of course, the logic of each is related to the logic of the others), of which a couple (unknown in advance) will necessarily draw a beautiful yield curve. And it is possible to present them. It's simple: buy on one account and sell on another and wait for profit on one of them. Enter the second pair and make 4 accounts. The third one, you open 8 accounts. And on one of them the direction will be guessed 3 times out of 3. And what does this prove? Conclusion: it is impossible in principle to "bring proof". They can only be demonstrated, not "brought", in real time.
3 We are not in court for me to show you evidence. I would only point out that the approaches I have developed are equally capable of earning even on the occasional wanderer.
1. Why should I care how someone does things 'normally'? I looked at how it works from the inside - for myself, out of curiosity, nothing more.
2. No accounts can serve as proof. After all, cheaters do just that: they open a hundred accounts, on which the robots trade differently (not by chance, of course, the logic of each is related to the logic of the others), of them a couple (unknown in advance what kind) necessarily draw a beautiful curve of profitability. And it is possible to present them. It's simple: buy on one account and sell on another and wait for profit on one of them. Enter the second pair and make 4 accounts. The third one, you open 8 accounts. And on one of them the direction will be guessed 3 times out of 3. And what does this prove? Conclusion: it is impossible in principle to "bring proof". They can only be demonstrated, not "brought", in real time.
3 We are not in court for me to show you evidence. I would only point out that the approaches I have developed are equally capable of earning even on the occasional wanderer.
I don't need any proof from you at all.
No proof at all.
You call normal words "nonsense" and talk nonsense. That's all there is to it.
Boris Gulikov:
You call normal words "nonsense" and talk nonsense. That's all.
You are not in a position to prove the impossibility of what the topicstarter asked, are you? Already from here it is obvious that my posts, though without proving too, without specifics, but saying - "maybe" is stronger than yours, and more likely than yours, which without proving and categorically (therefore stupid) denying possibility of such. Meanwhile, everything that is not forbidden is allowed. Even time travel. Try to realise this simple philosophy of physics. In 1930's, the scientists already knew the formula E = m*c^2 (by the way, try to see the error in this formula), but believed (including Einstein) that it is "impossible" to build the atomic bomb, because the energy released by the decay of one nucleus is still insignificant. The result is known.
You are not able to prove the impossibility of what the topic-starter asked, are you? Already from here it is obvious that my posts, though unsubstantiated too, without specifics, but saying - "maybe" is stronger than yours, and more likely than yours, which are unsubstantiated and categorically (therefore stupid) denying the possibility of such. Meanwhile, everything that is not forbidden is allowed. Even time travel. Try to understand this simple philosophy of physics.
What do you mean by not being able to? )))
Open any signal, any monitoring on absolutely any service older than one year and you will be convinced that I am absolutely right. )))
You are unable to prove the impossibility of what the topic-starter asked, aren't you? Already from here it is obvious that my posts, although without proof too, without specifics, but saying - "maybe" is stronger than yours, and more likely than yours, which are unsupported and categorically (therefore stupid) denying the possibility of such a thing. Meanwhile, everything that is not forbidden is allowed. Even time travel. Try to understand this simple philosophy of physics.
What do you mean by not being able to? )))
Open any signal, any monitoring on absolutely any service older than one year and you will be convinced that I am absolutely right. )))
You have now demonstrated only a complete lack of understanding of the philosophy of science. If you have a theory, and you constantly see facts all around to prove it - it cannot serve as proof of your theory (because, obviously, there may be a million times more facts that have escaped your sight). On the contrary, a single fact disproving it is enough to admit that it is untenable.
Go for it! Do the topikaster a favour. Open up a signal that she will subscribe to.
She has been looking for a long time, but cannot find one.
Let it turn out to be the one fact that disproves the obviousness.