How to make giant profits on forex? - page 69
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
Nothing is clear. You need to be more specific. This will help us figure out who is to blame.
I explain, any algorithm makes loss-making trades, so to be in the plus, you have to somehow 1) cover the losses, 2) and have a plus. If you do not use a martin, you must either have more profitable deals than losing ones, or if that does not work, from one profitable trade to take profit several times more than the trade is loaded with risk. If you don't have that, you'll lose in the end
I explain, any algorithm makes losing trades, so in order to be in the plus, you have to somehow 1) cover the losses, 2) and have a plus. If you do not use a martin, then you must either have more profitable deals than losing ones, or if that does not work, from one profitable trade to take profit several times more than the trade is loaded with risk. If you do not have it, you will lose in the end.
What's thissingle mother got to do with you?)
What does asingle mother have to do with you?)
What's a single mother?
what else is a single mother?
From the previous page. Thought it was your roommate if you answered for her.
Let us abstract away from the exchange. There is a task. There is a certain random sequence of how to gain initial balance with minimum possible number of attempts with minimum probability of losing 8 out of 10 attempts. I suggested martin+shifter+pyramids+all this should be sprinkled with random by application. I left the martin+shifter for now. Showed results for one-handed and two-handed variant where one hand sets to 1 and the other to 0. Results are the same.
Not arguing that I'm doing something wrong, please guide me to the error...
Hi - your statistics are not quite correct - you collect 11111 and you need all outcomes - the criterion for a loss becomes 00 - and for example 010110101011011011 - there is a profit 11111
sort of :) if you don't understand - i'll try to explain in more detail
Hi - your statistics are not quite correct - you collect 11111 and you need all outcomes - the criterion for a loss becomes 00 - and for example 010110101011011011 - there is a profit 11111
something like this :) if you don't understand - I'll try to explain in more detail.
Please elaborate. I am very interested.
it's about collecting statistics for a simple system - conditionally buy TP = 1 if a moose then 0 - deal step from 10 to 50 pps - gather stats - and build a betting system...
first lot = 1 - then the number of first level lots is taken into account - and the coefficient for the share lot is 2 - etc... the task is to at least catch three TPs in a row or higher = (Pyramiding - where 9-10 tees increase the initial bet by 1000 times :)))) like...
for example, by catching this kind of movement
it would be possible to catch a pyramid in about 15 knees - which would give a yield at the initial lot 0.1 - about 320.000 $ - :)
And my suggestion to the classic pyramid - where the moose on any knee gives an initial loss - to use a multi-level pyramid (with rollbacks) - by changing the coefficient of shares to the steps ...
it's about collecting statistics for a simple system - conditionally buy TP = 1 if a moose then 0 - deal step from 10 to 50 pps - gather stats - and build a betting system...
first lot = 1 - then count the number of first level moose - and make a coefficient of 2 - and so on... the task is to at least catch three TP in a row or higher = (Pyramiding - where 9-10 takeaways increase the initial bet by 1000 times :))) type of ...
Thanks a lot. I'll get to grips with it slowly.
For example, if you catch such a move, you could catch a pyramid of about 15 knees - which would give you an initial lot of 0.1 - about $320,000 - :)
How did your last catch end up there? There were rumours that it ended with a fat lot (read - stop), but there were no proofs attached to those rumours.