How to make giant profits on forex? - page 10
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
Instead of exalted exclamations, conduct modeling of this miracle, make a series of experiments, and you will understand everything.
And to mix in here"all modern physics" is absolutely irrelevant, it is from a category of "the elder brother in the garden, and the uncle in Kiev".
I used to model when I believed in Martin... And that's when I derived all these formulas that I use now.
Just a series of experiments and shows that my calculations are correct. Sure that in the first case of 110 losses in a row will not happen once, despite the fact that in 10 attempts we have 9 losses. In the second case - it will be enough to take 12 losses in a row, provided that for every 100 attempts will be 49 losses and 51 wins. But there is a very real chance of 5% chance of 13 losses... Still, the probability of winning is higher than the probability of losing, though not by much.
Why this modern physics cannot be cited as an example here I do not understand. It is also quite clear about what we can actually observe with instruments and what we can only assume. Just like in my case with a deposit of 2^111 bets. A smaller deposit - will not provide the right probability of winning. That's why exactly that deposit is needed.
What should I understand ?
...
If I did, then I would only justify those who do not live under the illusion of the grail, but trade by hand and live off the profits from trading on the market.
I was not talking about a lack of money, I wish you understood my point. When you have a lot of money only a fool would entrust it to an automated trading advisor, because it is a big risk. Big money is usually used for investments. While an Expert Advisor can only be trusted with relatively small amounts of money. The high risk is justified by the high profitability.
In your posts you often pedal the question of having or not having money. If you have a lot of it, you should not boast about it. First, a person deserves respect only when he has earned it himself honestly, and not inherited it from his parents. Secondly, do charity without any PR. Then you will be respected.
Yes, I used to model when I believed in martin... And that's when I derived all these formulas that I use now.
Just a series of experiments and shows that my calculations are correct. Surely, in the first case 110 losses in a row will not happen, despite the fact that in 10 attempts we have 9 losses. In the second case - it would be enough to survive 12 losses in a row, provided that for every 100 attempts will be 49 losses and 51 wins. But there is a very real chance of 5% chance of 13 losses... Still, the probability of winning is higher than the probability of losing, though not by much.
Why modern physics cannot be cited as an example here I do not understand. It is also quite clear about what we can actually observe with instruments and what we can only assume. Just like in my case with a deposit of 2^111 bets. A smaller deposit - will not provide the right probability of winning. That's why exactly that deposit is needed.
What should I understand ?
I noticed a long time ago that you refuse to understand anything at all that doesn't fit your setup. That's "immutability" indeed...
I've long noticed that you refuse to understand anything at all that doesn't fit your setup. Now, really, "immutability"...
How can I understand you, if you only slag off my findings, and don't point out where they are wrong? I checked them many times, I wrote programs and tested different variants...
What do you expect me to understand? Only that you yourself have not derived formulas, have not written programs, have not checked which deposit is required for which case in martingale...
"And these are the people who tell me not to pick my nose?"
How can I understand you, if you only slag off my conclusions and don't point out where they are wrong? But I have checked them many times, I have written programs and tested different variants...
What do you expect me to understand? Only that you yourself have not derived formulas, have not written programs, have not checked what deposit is required for which case in martingale...
"And these people forbid me to pick my nose?"
I've been running simulations. Several series with different conditions. And the conclusions of each one.
And posted them all in the public domain on the Broco forum. (That was 10 - 15 years ago).
This simulation is not hard to repeat.
And I don't forbid you to pick your nose, go on picking at your own pleasure, maybe you'll dig out something besides boogers.
If I have made excuses, it is only for those who do not live under the illusion of a grail, but trade by hand and live off the profits of trading in the market.
"In the illusions of the grail" is an interesting opinion...
What is a "grail" ?... in trading...
If you think about it, a "grail" is a VERY reliable trading strategy, ideally a GREAT one...
But this does not mean that the Grail trades STAY... The main difference between the Grail and other trading strategies is a minimum number of losing trades, or better - none at all...
In this case, the question of profit goes into the background, because there are no losses...
And now, how often does the grail trade?
In this regard, trading on daily charts and above fits optimally into the definition of a grail:
1. trading is not frequent...
2. Profits are large...
3. The amount of profit in a trade is ALWAYS enough to close the position in the plus in case of a sharp reversal of the pair's movement...
I suspect this opinion will not suit most traders... but to me it is...
"In the illusions of the grail" is an interesting opinion...
That's not my opinion. I was quoting Retag Konow. He is the author of this interesting opinion.
Yes, I used to model when I believed in martin... And that's when I derived all these formulas that I use now.
Just a series of experiments and shows that my calculations are correct. Surely, in the first case 110 losses in a row will not happen, despite the fact that in 10 attempts we have 9 losses. In the second case - it would be enough to survive 12 losses in a row, provided that for every 100 attempts will be 49 losses and 51 wins. But there is a very real chance of 5% chance of 13 losses... Still, the probability of winning is higher than the probability of losing, though not by much.
Why modern physics cannot be cited as an example here I do not understand. It is also quite clear about what we can actually observe with instruments and what we can only assume. Just like in my case with a deposit of 2^111 bets. A smaller deposit - will not provide the right probability of winning. That's why exactly that deposit is needed.
What should I understand ?
HERE ARE THE REALITIES - HERE ARE THE "REQUIRED" MINIMUM MILLIONS OF BILLIONS ACCORDING TO YOU :-)
https://alpari.com/ru/invest/pamm/329842/#pamm-return
FROM 300 BACKS
START WITH 300
Yes, I used to model when I believed in martin... And that's when I derived all these formulas that I use now.
Just a series of experiments and shows that my calculations are correct. Surely, in the first case 110 losses in a row will not happen, despite the fact that in 10 attempts we have 9 losses. In the second case - it would be enough to survive 12 losses in a row, provided that for every 100 attempts will be 49 losses and 51 wins. But there is a very real chance of 5% chance of 13 losses... Still, the probability of winning is higher than the probability of losing, though not by much.
Why modern physics cannot be cited as an example here I do not understand. It is also quite clear about what we can actually observe with instruments and what we can only assume. Just like in my case with a deposit of 2^111 bets. A smaller deposit - will not provide the right probability of winning. That's why exactly that deposit is needed.
What should I understand ?
How can you take a martin ? without stats on history - a - la where to re-bet - out? What is this? Why do you consider a martin in isolation from reality - it's not a casino where the EVENT is red - black?
Here are the flips from the stats to a third of the daily range on APR - EVENT, like 20 - 30 real pips. Under the casino - if it's red, then enter red, if it's black, then enter black.
A flip range of a third of the daily range is conditional (25 - 30%), kills dEp a la black-red-black-red and so on from 13 times... :-)
+ it is possible to limit time of trade + different chips, e.g. transfer to Boo and trawl, i.e. if after black - black, not to cover profit, but wait... If towards the black + another 2%, then transfer to the min profit rAequal to the channel width of 20-30% APR, if the price does not reach these 2%, again goes in the direction of red - no problem - again the robot reverses the position in the red on higher volumes - why do you hide from reality and your findings are not relevant deceive yourself?
If the market - gives profits - you have to BREAK!
How can I understand you, if you only slag off my conclusions and don't point out where they are wrong? But I have checked them many times, I have written programs and tested different variants...
What do you expect me to understand? Only that you yourself have not derived formulas, have not written programs, have not checked which deposit is required for which case in martingale...
"And these are the people who tell me not to pick my nose?"
Why are you cycling on your detached from reality calculations - student fantasies ? :-) calculate the martin of a classic overturned 25-30% channel of the average maximum ATP traded instrument... :-)
here for example
https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/22561
or here - yes it has an increase coefficient of 2.2 and what? it's a real Martin, but the TR is lower than the SL of the reverse.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/13532
limitation by time and number of flips (acceptance of a system loss)