Auto or manual - page 6
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
You didn't get out once, that's the result of digging through the rubbish
And he didn't. A very good result compared to the others.
You can poke and prod as you like, the way you talk is foreign to you, but I knew you'd write that way.)
I know where some of them are you don't have to ask,
It's not "mannerisms are alien", it's "it's reasonable to speak on a first name basis among peers".
I asked a very real question.
Is 30% enough for you? With that kind of income, what will you do?
or is there an extra billion roubles under the sofa? )
If you haven't lost any money in 8 years, you've 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. )))
No, it's not a demo, it's a small but real account, for me the amount on it is quite tangible.
For investors, you need profit. I am not making loss, but I am not making profit either. So far only DC is making money on me. But I still have the same account as it was at the beginning - I personally like it.
Your theses:
1) all experts periodically earn, but lose on distance more than
2) to earn, it is necessary to rotate experts in time, switching off those who currently lose
3) no criterion of future failure, so rotation is guessing and belated, because time is needed to state the period of losing or earning
1. the absence of profit at the distance - is the result of the absence of some regularity in the expert's logic, which, by definition, allows predicting the future state of the process with the probability higher than 0.5. Since it is absent, why should we imitate market analysis inside an Expert Advisor using indicators, if there is no valuable information for prognosis 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?
2. You want to add negative numbers to get their positive sum, well, that's just impossible.
1. No, that's where you get the same - guessing! Everything is built on a sphere! :-)
2. no - he does not do that - just take a few guessing robots that are currently showing pluses and that's it... HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO STABLY EARN ON SUCH AN APPROACH? How it is possible to make good money with such an approach?
If the probability of a profitable outcome is known to be less than 0.5, then the sum of their realisations is a sure loser, with no options.
T.e. There is no way to build an unreliable system out of unreliable elements?
)
1. There, there - it's the same - guessing game! It's all built on a wahr!!! :-)
2. no - he does not do it - he just takes a few guessing robots that are currently showing pluses and that's it... HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO STABLY EARN ON SUCH AN APPROACH? How it is possible to make good money with such an approach?
Your theses:
1) all experts periodically earn, but lose more than
2) to earn, it is necessary to rotate experts in time, switching off those who currently lose
3) no criterion of future failure, so rotation is guessing and belated, because time is needed 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 by adding negative numbers to get their positive sum, well, that's just impossible.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Point 3 is NOT. I have perfectly clear criteria for decomposition. I have difficulties with the inverse task - choosing the most stable TS. Unfortunately, I don't have this task solved, and it's done intuitively.
And as for "the fact is inferred" - everything is simple here. The amount of losses is unprofitable only if the switching is done randomly. However, switching the TS does not have to be random. Now, even with intuitive switching, I nevertheless use quite objective criteria.
If it were "impossible to get a positive amount by adding negative systems" - I would have drained the account long ago. And I haven't, even though I've been working continuously for several years. If my principle is unprofitable - when do you think I will lose the $400 I have in my account now?
True, there may be periods of profit on the manet as well. Anyway, Zhora invented the wheel
It's not like I said that I "invented" it - the League idea was suggested to me. Moreover, I have heard a couple of times about traders who are following the same path.
1. There, there - it's the same - guessing game!!! It's all built on a shAre!!! :-)
2. no - he does not do that - he just takes a few guessing robots that are currently showing pluses and that's it... HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO STABLY EARN ON SUCH AN APPROACH? How one can manage serious money with such an approach is unclear...
Roman, there is a difference.
Look.
1. Robots don't just make money now. Each of them has a successful history of trading. Already by this criterion out of 700 TS remain no more than 100. And a coin does not pass this criterion.
2. To set them on the real account I'm evaluating not only the current trade. But also the "critical parameters", and even the type of TS. Say, I like the systems with fixed TP-SL the most. Remember, I told you right away that RTS systems are very similar in behavior to martins.
3. The "quality of trade" parameter is also being improved. For example, four months ago another component was added that was not considered before and it seems to have had a positive effect on the selection. The average quality score of the systems has decreased significantly, but the systems with the highest trade quality are a bit more stable.
And finally, I'm getting experience too, and have some preferences for system selection...
So it's not possible to talk about a "coin".
It's not like I said that I "invented" it - the League idea was suggested to me. Moreover, I have heard a couple of times about traders who are following the same path.