Auto or manual - 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
Well... What kind of "stable" are they if they "one day lose it"? ??? That's the way any martin works... Increases-increases-increases the load, and the equity falls faster and faster... Until a small movement in the right direction "pulls" the equity into a small plus, after which everything closes...
In fact, it is a "casino" TS... It is not reasonable to use it.
Stable relative to other EAs, 1-2 years does not drain this is an indicator of stability over such a period of time,
I don't think it's Martini, Martini is in the Stone Age now, not many people use it,
But there are no high-quality EAs that do not fail at all.
They all do, and one day they all do, especially when you think that's it, Forex is over! ;)
Yes, ANY Expert Advisor has periods of profit. But they are shorter than periods of loss, and all other things being equal, the total loss during periods of loss is greater than the total gain during periods of profit.
Moreover, this rule does not depend on the Expert Advisor complexity. All 700 of my TS work with simple long known patterns. The code of any of them is in Kodobase. And at any moment there are those who are earning. The only problem is that these earning TS are constantly changing.
You have collected a bunch of unworkable tools and are trying to draw conclusions from this fundamentally flawed experience, well here they are: any expert is losing more than they are earning. What kind of "patterns" are they, if they work out seldom and poorly? Anti-legalities, or rather the absence of regularities. Your approach is like rummaging through a junkyard and then asserting from that experience that there is no such thing as a broken thing.
You have collected a bunch of unworkable tools and are trying to draw conclusions from this fundamentally flawed experience, well, here they are: any expert is losing more than they are earning. What kind of "patterns" are they, if they work out seldom and poorly? Anti-legalities, or rather the absence of any regularities at all. Your approach is like rummaging through a junkyard and then asserting from that experience that there is no such thing as a broken thing.
You have collected a bunch of unworkable tools and are trying to draw conclusions from this fundamentally flawed experience, well, here they are: any expert is losing more than they are earning. What kind of "patterns" are they, if they work out seldom and poorly? Anti-legalities, or rather the absence of regularities at all. Your approach is like going through a junkyard and then asserting that there are no good things in nature, but only broken ones.
No, no. I started by developing a very complex Expert Advisor whose TS was created by a trader on the basis of more than a decade of experience. It had a 20-year history of stable profit.
However, when it was put into trading it yielded profit within two months. In the third month he lost almost all of it. After that we removed him and put him on demo, and he did not show good results. Sometimes he had good months, but he had more losing months.
And this TS, I repeat, was based on many years of trader's experience.
After that I took the "bunch of tools that don't work". When I've announced the start of development here I was muzzled by arguments that "it is impossible to make a profitable Expert Advisor even for a short time", that "only scalpers make profit, but they must be frequently optimized", that "it's all a false idea, no profitable Expert Advisor will ever be profitable".
My experience has shown that all these "non-functional tools" work in exactly the same way as that very sophisticated Expert Advisor. And among those "rubbish bots" there are always those that make money. That's the ones to choose.
And about "rummaging in the dump" - absolutely right. The League of Trading Systems is a "recycling plant". And I'm fine with it. It doesn't give the stars from the sky, but it's not draining either. Personally, I think it is quite realistic to make 30% per annum on a regular basis. All the more so, as these very "trash TC" work exactly the same way as the "non-taxable" ones... What's the point of the "non-muscle" ones then?
No way. I started by developing a very complex Expert Advisor, whose TS was created by a trader based on more than a decade of experience. And on a 20 year history it was consistently producing profits.
However, when it was put into trading it yielded profit within two months. In the third month he lost almost all of it. Then we removed him and put him on demo, and he did not show good results. Sometimes he had good months, but he had more losing months.
And this TS, I repeat, was based on many years of trader's experience.
After that I took the "bunch of tools that don't work". When I've announced the start of development here - I've been asserted that "it's impossible to make a profitable Expert Advisor even for a short time", that "only scalpers make profit, but they must be frequently optimized", that "it's all a false idea, no profitable robot will ever exist".
My experience has shown that all these "non-functional tools" work in exactly the same way as that very sophisticated Expert Advisor. And among those "rubbish bots" there are always those that make money. That's the ones to choose.
And about "rummaging in the dump" - absolutely right. The League of Trading Systems is a "recycling plant". And I'm fine with it. It doesn't give the stars from the sky, but it's not draining either. Personally, I think it's quite realistic to make 30% per annum on a regular basis. All the more so, as these very "trash TC" work exactly the same way as the "non-taxable" ones... And what is the point of "unmodern"?
Do you need those 30% per annum?
What will you do with them? Is it enough for you?
Do you need that 30% per annum?
What will you do with it? Is that enough for you?
How much do you want? (don't "piss me off" arrogantly, let's keep it on a need-to-know basis).
Some people make 100% a day... And where are those "some"? I haven't lost a day in eight years. That's the answer to the "what are you gonna do" question.
How much do you want? (don't arrogate me, let's keep it on a first-name basis).
Some people make 100% a day... And where are some of them? I haven't lost a day in eight years. That's the answer to the "what are you gonna do" question.
How much do you want? (don't arrogate me, let's keep it on a first-name basis).
Some people make 100% a day... And where are some of them? I haven't lost a day in eight years. That's the answer to the "what are you gonna do" question.
You can poke and prod as you like, the way you talk is foreign to you, but I knew you'd write like this.)
I know where some of them are, you don't have to ask,
I asked you a very real question.
is 30% enough for you? on this income what will you do?
or is there an extra billion roubles under the couch? )
If you haven't lost any money in 8 years, you probably earned enough not to go scavenging,
He could have found investors for such a period of time,
Or forgot to mention that it was just a demo. )))
What confuses me is the huge number of robots in kodobaz, the marketplace and other resources. There aren't any earning ones.
Why is it embarrassing? Rubbish goods in all spheres are always in the majority.
No way. I started by developing a very complex Expert Advisor, whose TS was created by a trader based on more than a decade of experience. And on a 20 year history it was consistently producing profits.
However, when it was put into trading it yielded profit within two months. In the third month he lost almost all of it. Then we removed him and put him on demo, and he did not show good results. Sometimes he had good months, but he had more losing months.
And this TS, I repeat, was based on many years of trader's experience.
After that I took the "bunch of tools that don't work". When I've announced the start of development here - I've been asserted that "it's impossible to make a profitable Expert Advisor even for a short time", that "only scalpers make profit, but they must be frequently optimized", that "it's all a false idea, no profitable robot will ever exist".
My experience has shown that all these "non-functional tools" work in exactly the same way as that very sophisticated Expert Advisor. And among those "rubbish bots" there are always those that make money. That's the ones to choose.
And about "rummaging in the dump" - absolutely right. The League of Trading Systems is a "recycling plant". And I'm fine with it. It doesn't give the stars from the sky, but it's not draining either. Personally, I think that 30% annual return on a regular basis with it is quite realistic.
Your theses:
1) all EAs periodically make profit, but they are losing on distance more than
2) in order to make profit, you need to rotate EAs in time, turning off the ones that are losing at the moment
3) no criterion of future defeat, so rotation is guessing and belated, because it takes time to state the period of losing or earning
The absence of profit at a distance is the result of the absence of some regularity in the Expert Advisor logic, which, by definition, allows to predict the future state of the process with the probability more than 0.5. Since it is absent, why should we imitate market analysis inside an Expert Advisor using indicators, if there is no valuable forecasting information coming from such "analysis"? You can just trade a coin or a set of pennies and lose the spread in the same way.
How is it possible to conclude from the fact that "all EAs are losing" that one can earn on a distance with such a set? This is absurd. If the probability of a profitable outcome is obviously less than 0.5, the amount of its realizations is a sure loss. How can one, having no methods of analysis, no regularities, i.e. no criteria for intelligent decision making, pull the set of knowingly losing balance trajectories to the area above zero? You want to add negative numbers to get their positive sum, well, that's just impossible.