How to make giant profits on forex? - page 9

New comment
 
Georgiy Merts:

Where does that come from?

On the contrary, I always seem to say that there is no sense here - I have no such capital...

There is no point here, not because you have no such capital (there is no such capital on the whole planet Earth), but because your "calculations" are meaningless - it is a complete disconnect from reality.

 
Shoker:
You guys are getting into a heated discussion about Martin. It reminds me of a Georgian in our brigade who used to do roofing - any topic (even a nuclear apocalypse with the destruction of all things in the universe) ended up with women.
So, a little bit about Martin... It's worth recalling that his original idea was to win the original bet at a 1:1 payoff. This is classic Martin - 1-2-4-8-... Along with the classic Martin, a slow Martin was developed - 1-1-2-4-8-... which prevents you from losing your original bet. So was the original fast Martin - 1-3-7-15-31-... - ensures that the original bet is won for every bet. Everything else is derivative of them, as is reverse Martin.
As for the use of Martin in casinos. The casino has a maximum wager limit. That is, if you play with Martin, you can increase your bet 5-7 times occasionally 9-11, without bringing in a "second" hand, with each successive increase being one "helper". In this case, the size of the loss adds up all bets, and the winnings are incommensurably small with him, so casinos do not particularly struggle with Martin. Also, on roulette (not taking into account zeros), there's a 50% chance of winning, as well as a 50% chance of losing, when playing for even odds. (With zero, there's a 48.65% chance of winning.) For all that, the probability of winning does not increase with a series of failures. In my memory, while working in a casino, one number fell out 7 times in a row, then another number fell out, and then another 2 times in a row the previous number fell out. The Guinness Book of World Records lists numbers of the same colour on the same roulette table for over 30 hours.
In Forex (let me use this name to refer to all markets) our losses do not only depend on our lot, which for some reason many people think of Martin. Our loss depends on the money we lose (lot*PPP). Thus, Martin has undergone a lot of modifications in Forex, where traders vary not only by lot, but also by points, wishing to win back the lost money for previous trades and go straight to profit. If he varies only by lot and not by pips, Martin will quickly lose his deposit because in this situation, the trader does not try to analyze the market and treats Forex like a casino, where the chance of winning direction is always 50% and the loss is a sum of previous bets. But the chance that the price will pass the required number of points is different, so the Martin, which everybody is used to talking about, is different in Forex, and everybody sees it in his own way. That's why many people don't understand why they can't be understood when they explain that they can win in Forex with Martin. They just can't explain that not only do they vary the lot, but they also calculate the expected PPs, upon reaching which the money is already pouring into the account in half.
On the principle of playing without market analysis I can tell you about my practice of playing on an infinite average. According to the "idea" the price tends to the infinite average. Therefore, I opened towards the infinite average. According to the second "idea" - each candle has a shadow - therefore I set 17 points as the target. With a 50 pips pullback I decreased the target to 13 pips, and i.e. calculated for 5 Knees. Without loss - the third "idea" - the trader risks the entire deposit. All trading was strictly in manual mode. So, let me tell you guys: in one year and eight months of playing (there's no other way to describe it) with daily market entries there was no loss. I've really swung the stock, taken it out and... one mistake.
That's it, the grail is provided))) We take Martin, vary not only by lot, but also by other parameters, and... For a year and eight months (proven) win-win deposit and withdraw the money.)))

I made one mistake, and I have nothing to complain about! A fact is a fact.)
 
Реter Konow:
That's it, the grail is provided.) We take Martin, vary not only by lot, but also by other parameters, and... In one year and eight months (proven) we'll winlessly maximize our deposit and withdraw money.))

And there's nothing to complain about! A fact is a fact.)


The Grail is the spread. Whoever takes the spread owns the Grail.

 
Shoker:


The grail is the spread. Whoever takes the spread, owns the Grail.

Well, Martin, according to your story, does too. It's hard not to think of a strategy that makes daily profits (with a single loss) for a year and eight months in a real account as a grail).

By the way, please clarify (to avoid misunderstandings) what exactly you mean by "takes the spread". The spread is taken by brokers and therefore sounds a bit ambiguous.
 
Реter Konow:
By the way, please clarify (so that there is no misunderstanding) what exactly you mean by "takes the spread". The spread is taken by brokers and therefore sounds a bit ambiguous.


That is correct. In their hands. And it is not ambiguous.

 
Shoker:


That's right. In their hands. And not at all ambiguous.

Well, that makes sense then).
 
Олег avtomat:

It makes no sense, not because you have no such capital (there is no such capital on planet Earth), but because your "calculations" are meaningless - it is a complete break from reality.

No, I am not at all disconnected from reality, because the calculations tell us that it makes no sense at all. There is no such capital not only for me but for the whole Earth - you're right, but where is the "breakaway"? I think it's the opposite, it's a "return to reality". And the clear sign that winning on average 1 bet after 9 losses - you can't save this situation by martin.

However, if our trade will be such, that for 49 bets we will have 51 losses, and we will not count on 1000 won series, but, say, 100, and take 0.95 probability of failure - then the capital becomes quite sane. Under these conditions we only have to sustain 12 losses in a row, which requires 4,096 stakes. If we take a $1 bet, even I have $4K of capital. For most people, that's nothing.

But then again - we win 100 series of $1, so we have a total profit of $100, for a capital of $4K - the profit is obviously small. At the same time, we have a small 0.05% chance of draining the entire capital. This also shows the pointlessness of martingale.

 
Georgiy Merts:

No, there is no break from reality - the calculations say it makes absolutely no sense. And there is no such capital not only for me but for the whole Earth - you're right, but where is the "breakaway"? In my opinion, on the contrary, it's a "return to reality". And the clear sign that winning on average 1 bet after 9 losses - you can't save this situation by martin.

However, if our trade will be such, that for 49 bets we will have 51 losses, and we will not count on 1000 won series, but, say, 100, and take 0.95 probability of failure - then the capital becomes quite sane. Under these conditions we only have to sustain 12 losses in a row, which requires 4,096 stakes. If we take a $1 bet, even I have $4K of capital. For most people, that's nothing.

But then again - we win 100 series of $1, so we have a total profit of $100, for a capital of $4K - the profit is obviously small. At the same time, we have a small 0.05% chance of draining the entire capital. Which also shows the pointlessness of martingale.

Just to remind you of your own words:

Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies

How to make huge profits on forex?

Georgiy Merts, 2020.08.16 19:27

You don't care if there is a zeros, if there are commissions, spreads and if 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.

Go ahead, even with such a horrible trading (we win only one bet out of ten, and lose the rest nine) we will win 1000 times in a row with 99% probability!


But now you have understood the absurdity of your words. And that's a good thing.

But you keep clinging to that stupidity for now. And that's no good.
 
Олег avtomat:

I remind you of your own words:


But now you've understood the absurdity of those words. That's good.

But you keep holding on to that stupidity for now. And that's no good.

What's "absurd"? Where's the mistake? Can you point it out?

I take the raw data, I get the result. Quite clear and correct.

Or do you consider "absurdity" that nobody has such capital? So let's consider all modern physics absurd - we do not see what happens in the depth of matter or in the Universe...

What is the "absurdity"?

 
Georgiy Merts:

What is "absurd"? Where is the mistake? Can you point it out?

I take the raw data, I get the result. Quite clear and correct.

Or do you consider "absurdity" that nobody has such capital? So let's consider absurdity of all modern physics - we do not see what happens in the depth of matter or in the Universe...

What is "absurdity"?

Instead of exalted exclamations, try to simulate the miracle, do a series of experiments, and you will understand.

And to mix in here"all modern physics" is absolutely irrelevant, it is from a category "a little elder in a field, and an uncle in Kiev".

12345678910111213141516...70
New comment