How to make giant profits on forex? - page 5
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
Uh-oh. Another condition for defining a martin. As many people as there are interpretations of what a martin is. Then I'll keep quiet, I don't have a martin, I'll just call it a grail.))
Exactly. That's my point too.
The martingale system originally involves doubling the lot when you lose. That's it. All the "contrivances" emasculate this idea. And more often than not, the main idea of a martin is left to the horns... But they still call it a "martin"...
Exactly. That's my point.
The original Martingale system involves doubling the lot when you lose. That's it. And all the "contrivances" dilute that idea. And more often than not, the main idea of a martin is left to the horns... But they still call it a "martin"...
Uh-oh. Another condition for defining a martin. As many people as there are interpretations of what a martin is. Then I'll shut up, I'm not a martin, I'll just call it a grail.))
In all seriousness, there are no restrictions either on the size of the starting lot, or on other parameters. Everyone can do whatever he/she wants. The only important thing is the following: the Expert Advisor should stably bring profit, preferably a good one, and with an acceptable maximum drawdown.
If the initial lot is too small (units of min-lots), any increase of this lot will be serious, to put it mildly. And the relative error (from lot rounding) is too large. And it beats money and naughty hands, there's an exponent there. The minimum lot can only be doubled at all.
The correct way to calculate a martin is not from the "lot of previous deal", but from the drawdown, but with a minuscule initial lot it cannot be done (or rather one can calculate it, but one cannot open exactly, and the "tails" will be a heavy burden).
That's why martingale normally works with 10 minimum lots. Kids just don't know about it.
If the starting lot is too small (min.lot units), then any increase is serious to say the least. And the relative error (from lot rounding) is too big. And it beats money and naughty hands, there's an exponent there. The minimum lot can only be doubled at all.
The correct way to calculate a martinis not from the "lot of previous deal", but from the drawdown, but with a minuscule initial lot it cannot be done (or rather one can calculate it, but one cannot open exactly, and the "tails" will be a heavy burden).
That's why martingale normally works with 10 minimum lots. Kids just don't know about it.
All these settings are your subjective opinion. My lot counts from the distance travelled. But I'm not going to impose on anyone that this is the only correct way to do it. It doesn't matter what colour the cat is, as long as it catches mice.
All these settings are your subjective opinion. My lot counts from the distance travelled. But I'm not going to impose on anyone that this is the only right thing to do. It doesn't matter what colour the cat is, as long as it catches mice.
"Doubling is for roulette and in simple mathematical abstractions. Read the basics carefully, figure it out.
No way.
You're talking about the very "refinements" that turn a martingale into a regular position trade.
A pure martingale is a simple doubling, and works for any situation, whether for roulette or trading, and works fine even with losing trades.
The only disadvantage is the huge amount of capital required with very modest profits.
No way.
You're talking about the very "refinements" that turn a martingale into a regular position trade.
A pure martingale is a simple doubling, and works for any situation, whether for roulette or trading, and works fine even with losing trades.
The only disadvantage is the huge amount of capital required with very modest profits.
You have read a lot of popular literature and do not see the difference between roulette and Forex. The "martingale" management is considered by the kids strictly from roulette, according to wikipedia's "gambler's ruin problem". Without even getting into the essence of the formulas given there.
They have zeros there; we do not. We have commissions and spreads, they don't.
Think of martingale as doubling the lot. If it's not doubling, it's not martingale. If doubling, but not always, it is not it too :-). So it is a rare phenomenon here.
What can I argue with you, you have read a lot of popular literature and do not see the differences between roulette and forex. The "martingale" management is considered by the children strictly according to the "gambler's ruin problem" in Wikipedia, strictly from roulette. Without even getting into the essence of the formulas given there.
They have zeros there; we do not. We have commissions and spreads, they don't.
Think of martingale as doubling the lot. If it's not doubling, it's not martingale. If doubling, but not always, it is not it too :-). That is, it is a rare phenomenon here.
It DOES NOT MATTER whether you have zeros, commissions, spreads or how often you win. Martingale gives you the chance to win EVERYTHING. The only question is the size of the deposit.
We solved this problem as students using a probability theory textbook without any Internet.
The initial value - a generalized probability of profit, taking into account the spread, and the commissions, and your skills. It can be anything. Up to 0.1! (I hope this figure includes any commission, any spreads, and your inability to play, the coin gives more).
Set also the number of series, let's say 1000 times in a row.
Let's set the probability of not losing the capital for this period of time. Let's assume 99%.
Given such data we should be able to stand 111 losses in a row. That would require 2^111 equity of initial bets.
All - go ahead, even with such a terrible trade (only one bet out of ten win, the other nine - lose) we have a probability of 99% 1000 times in a row to win!
DOES NOT PLAY whether there are zeros, whether there are commissions, spreads, and whether you win often. Martingale gives you the opportunity to win ALWAYS. The only question is the size of the deposit.
We solved this problem as students using a probability theory textbook without any Internet.
The initial value - a generalized probability of profit, taking into account the spread, and the commissions, and your skills. It may be any value. Up to 0.1! (I hope this figure includes any commission, any spreads, and your inability to play, the coin gives more).
Set also the number of series, let's say 1000 times in a row.
Specify the probability of not losing the capital for this period of time. Let's assume 99%.
Given such data we should be able to stand 111 losses in a row. That would require 2^111 equity of initial bets.
All - go ahead, even with such a terrible trade (we win only one bet out of ten, the other nine - lose) we will win with a probability of 99% of 1000 times in a row!
DOES NOT PLAY whether there are zeros, whether there are commissions, spreads, and whether you win often. Martingale gives you the opportunity to win ALWAYS. The only question is the size of the deposit.
We solved this problem as students using a probability theory textbook without any Internet access.
The initial value - a generalized probability of profit, taking into account the spread, and the commissions, and your skills. It can be anything. Up to 0.1! (I hope this figure includes any commission, any spreads, and your inability to play, the coin gives more).
Set also the number of series, let's say 1000 times in a row.
Specify the probability of not losing the capital for this period of time. Let's assume 99%.
Given such data we should be able to stand 111 losses in a row. That would require 2^111 equity of initial bets.
All - go ahead, even with such a terrible trade (only one bet out of ten win, the other nine - lose) we have a probability of 99% of 1000 times in a row to win !
I'm telling you, they read popular literature and through the line, they miss some of the formulas and don't understand the meaning.
There's another indicator there. Probability cannot take into account spreads and commissions. Physically it cannot.
That's why in your statement the capital will need much more than 2^111