A topic for traders. - page 33
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
Again Georges, you're sticking your League everywhere.... :-) and promote it...
No, of course, go to youtube - scalping - there are interesting topics, for example, pure scalping by the cup with Bondar's drive + tape trades + clusters + chart - only 25% each, or even just the cup of orders 100% and that's it.
And the indexes on the FORTS-MSC, and do not do with large volumes, not to stumble on liquidity in Russia, like up to 10 million rubles - do not make bad money, just on the system - on the trading approach in ONE system, which is constantly being updated and other chips ...
Bouncing off volume, eating up large volume - into a breakdown, etc.
If you can't develop one system that uses multiple patterns (or one) - then don't write that this approach doesn't work.
You're stuck with this empty idea with jumping and guessing on various baubles, which can hardly even be called a TS, and you write about it on all the corners.
It's all empty. Serious money is not made that way...
Serious money. Have you seen "serious money" here?
I see a distinct difference between when I didn't have a league and when I have one now. Before, if my system stopped earning and started to drain, I didn't know what to do. Now it's a small thing. I immediately take the next one. I don't have the question of how to make a system. The question has shifted to another plane - how to choose the most stable one. And it is much simpler, in my opinion.
And different markets... what difference does it make? If it were possible, I would have put a bunch of systems there too, so that there would always be something to choose from. All sorts of different principles and designs. The main thing is to keep it simple, so that the systems are as stable as possible. I am convinced that the simpler the system, the more stable it is.
And I don't like scalpers only because it is too much profit for DC. But the League principles work for scalpers in the same way.
Well, that's serious. Have you seen anyone here with "serious money"?
I see a clear difference between when I didn't have the League and when I have it now. Before, if my system stopped earning and started to drain, I didn't know what to do. Now it's a small thing. I immediately take the next one. I don't have the question of how to make a system. The question has shifted to another plane - how to choose the most stable one. And it is much simpler, in my opinion.
And different markets... what difference does it make? If it were possible, I would have put a bunch of systems there too, so that there would always be something to choose from. All sorts of different principles and designs. The main thing is to keep it simple, so that the systems are as stable as possible. I am convinced that the simpler the system, the more stable it is.
And I don't like scalpers only because it is too big profit for brokerage companies. But the League principles work for scalpers in the same way.
I'll tell you, the whole league has one system...
SMA trading, with take/stop variations (yes, Ema,Lwma and other windowed MAs are reduced to SMAs) . And the constant over-optimisation gives the appearance of leading something there.
Unfortunately, it does. If you change the "principle/schedule" of overoptimisation, the whole "leadership" structure becomes different.
That is, the result depends on the optimiser and its parameters and is random in terms of trade.
hand on heart - there is one system in the whole league...
Trading by SMA, with variations of take/stops (yes, Ema,Lwma and other windowed MAs are reduced to SMAs) . And the constant over-optimisation gives the appearance of leading something there.
Unfortunately, it does. If you change the "principle/schedule" of overoptimisation, the whole "leadership" structure becomes different.
That is, the result depends on the optimiser and its parameters and is random in terms of trade.
No, if we are talking about principles - there are three, I said. Multiplied by four types of accompaniment and two directions. However, the same system behaves significantly differently on different symbols. So it should not be seen as one, but as different. The challenge is to have a set of DIFFERENT systems.
There is no point in hooking, you could say that there is only one system at all - an asset in one place in the chart is bought, in another place it is sold.
Well, that's serious. Have you seen anyone here with "serious money"?
I see a clear difference between when I didn't have the League and when I have it now. Before, if my system stopped earning and started to drain, I didn't know what to do. Now it's a small thing. I immediately take the next one. I don't have the question of how to make a system. The question has shifted to another plane - how to choose the most stable one. And it is much simpler, in my opinion.
And different markets... what difference does it make? If it were possible, I would have put a bunch of systems there too, so that there would always be something to choose from. All sorts of different principles and designs. The main thing is to keep it simple, so that the systems are as stable as possible. I am convinced that the simpler the system, the more stable it is.
And I don't like scalpers only because it is too much profit for DC. But the League principles work the same for scalpers.
This is not about OC, but about real exchange, where there are stacks of bids and other stuff....
Where contract (if futures market) is minimum 1, but not 0,00000001 lot :-) like in brokerage companies.
This is not a brokerage house, but a real exchange with order stacks and other goodies....
Where contract (if futures market) is minimum 1, but not 0,00000001 lot :-) like in brokerage companies.
So? My principles are exactly the same. We put a bunch of different systems, and let them work all the time. And our job is to choose among them.
All these glasses, contracts - it's all trifles that do not change anything. If it were that much better - no one would be interested in Forex pairs - everyone would be sitting on those "real exchanges". In reality, "real exchanges" differ from brokerage houses only in the fact that you can lose much more money there. That is all. And the opportunities to make a profit or to lose it are the same.
As the saying goes, everyone has his own swamp).
Even if you look at a simple clothing market, not everyone is able to trade in the black and quickly go bankrupt.
Not to mention the financial markets, where you have to have a completely different approach to analysis and decision-making.
The markets are all the same. You buy cheaper, sell dearer.
But deciding where and what to buy is a trader's talent, not the fault of the market or a broker.
As the saying goes, everyone has his own swamp).
Even if you look at a simple clothing market, not everyone is able to trade in the black and quickly go bankrupt.
Not to mention the financial markets, where you have to have a completely different approach to analysis and decision-making.
The markets are all the same. You buy cheaper, sell dearer.
And the decision where and what to buy is a trader's talent, not the fault of the market or the broker.
If you do not take into account marketing gimmicks and exchange restrictions, the market is not much different from the financial market. If you remove the restrictions with the exchange, you can create your own trading instruments with a price chart), such as pairs:sneakers/jeans, sneakers/socks, jeans/socks , because ordinary clothing market aggregation is poor (if at all), then you can arbitrage these pairs and earn good cash. On FX, such a combo cannot be traded, the aggregate will not allow such a situation.
You buy cheaper and sell more expensive . You have to ask yourself the question: relative to what time frame is the price cheaper? Example:I bought on the market trainers for $ 100 (pair: trainers / dollar) / 7000 rubles to date, but in fact I spent 7500 rubles since bought quid this summer at a rate of 75 rubles / dollar.
PS: I'm laughing from my writing))))
If you don't take into account marketing chips and exchange restrictions, then the clothing market is not much different from the financial market. If you remove restrictions with the exchange, you can create your own trading instruments with a price chart), such as pairs:sneakers/jeans, sneakers/socks, jeans/socks , because the usual clothing market aggregation is poor (if at all), then you can arbitrage these pairs and earn good cash. On FX such a combo will not work, the aggregate will not allow such a situation.
You buy cheaper, sell more expensive . You have to ask yourself the question: relative to what time frame is the price cheaper? Example:I bought on the market trainers for $ 100 (pair: trainers / dollar) / 7000 rubles to date, but in fact I spent 7500 rubles since bought quid this summer at a rate of 75 rubles / dollar.
PS: I'm laughing from my writing))))
Only whenyou buy cheaper and sell it more expensive you can make a profit. It's not just words, it's the meaning of trade. The market does not look at regalia, the importance of the person involved, it absolutely does not care)
Yeah. Forgot about the socks and panties. There's always a demand for them. Somebody's making more money on them than many of the pros here in the financial markets.
Only whenyou buy cheaper and sell dearer can you make a profit. The market does not look at the regalia, the importance of the people involved, it does not care).
I disagree, the market looks at regalia. The big players (central bank, large banks, funds) rule the market because of their volumes + insiders (they see all our orders), a camouflaged monopoly))
This is where we encounter the Yusuf effect when there are a large number of tools or TCs used. I see this disease in your experience as well).
Scalpers are a separate topic. But I am ready to actively participate in the discussion of their tactics.
The economic crisis has reduced the volatility of financial instruments. Investors will soon be shedding tears for the old days. Scalpers will rejoice at the times. You have to keep up with the times. See one step ahead.
I think we need to look out for information on the potential of trading D, which has a precise formula for calculation and reveals the potential of the TS in a timely manner, going negative at the right moment: