Is martin so bad? Or do you have to know how to cook it? - page 28
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
For tankers, I repeat: if you push ads on the forum, there will be a bathhouse. is that clearer?
I recommend you save your energy for your clients. your excuses are of no interest here.
.....After the dot, the next sentence starts with a capital letter.
This forum was created to popularize MQL5.
This includes communication between programmers, questions on programming, as well as indirectly the development of TS, a place where trader can meet with the programmer.
If you are not satisfied with something in your EA or TS, you can ask them, since the forum is full of people, and they are sure to find a competent one.
If you have a ready-made Expert Advisor, it is working and you are happy with it, and you do not need help with debugging, etc., then you should go straight to the Market or Signals (because posts like yours, this is advertising, hidden or overt, it is not the point).
.....After the dot-the next sentence starts with a capital letter.
.....After the dot-the next sentence starts with a capital letter.
There's plenty on YouTube if you're too lazy to read books or look up statistics
Here's an example:
Bad evidence, not exhaustive, especially based on a random process. In addition, the "internet" is full of opposing opinions, one must consider arguments and evidence from all sides, if the argument is for finding out the truth, not for a short-term victory.
I have spent some time analysing martin-like money management logics and my conclusions are different. On the whole I agree with imodify. It all depends on the TS. martin or any lot multiplication system( not necessarily by 2) in case of forecast error, only redistributes risks to smooth out equity.
A smooth equity is a good thing.
And even in the casinos where the negative equity is higher, Martingale is limited to the maximum lot, and not without a reason, because otherwise the client would lose the casino.
Of course in Forex it is stupid to use Martyn on very small accounts(<$10k). But then it is better not to trade on the real account, but refine your TS on the demo. And when the TS is effective enough, you may open PAMM and quickly get sufficient liquidity, which is not lacking in Forex.
The hysteria negativity associated with Martingale is associated with the number of people who succumbed to the smallest losses, primarily because of the very small deposit compared to the average salary of an ordinary office clerk, and this is very little, not a breath for any TS. We should provide some clear explanation of this process for newcomers who want to "run up the deposit" from $100.
That is the crowd of such speed lovers screaming. They outnumber them by many orders of magnitude. But those who have enough liquidity are not heard and not seen.
But the positionof imodify is not quite clear to me frankly. What is required or expected as a response from the community? I understand that help is not needed, as well as revision of ekspert logic, at the same time if it's just an advertising message, then the place is not chosen correctly. Of course giving out code is sacrilege with respect to own work, but it would be possible to discuss logical moments of e.g. predicting shrewdly to Martin-like MM. Otherwise a completely empty conversation which cannot even be classified as a black PR when at the expense of a negative discussion it is supposed to fix in the memory the information about the product. In general, the aims of the respected imodify are unclear . If he had clarified them...
Poor proof, not exhaustive,
That's the crowd of speed freaks screaming. There are many orders of magnitude more of them. But those who have enough liquidity are neither heard nor seen.
The averaging of a losing position
...Very often traders keep opening in a predetermined direction that has already become unprofitable. They strive to reach the breakeven level, and if they are lucky they may close with a small profit. This is called averaging unprofitable positions.
The first time I entered the market I met an old and wise man named Sam. He treated me with sympathy. I kept trying to make Sam laugh by telling him jokes and anecdotes. Knowing that I was a novice, he would come to my desk in the mornings and ask questions about upcoming economic data, hoping that I would start paying attention to the right indicators sooner or later. As I traded, I noticed Sam watching me from his corner of the floor.
At the end of my first working week, Sam, my new guru, took me aside and said: "Jack, you're Armenian, aren't you? Don't forget, my boy, that loss averaging has killed more Armenian traders than Turks." Saying this in a loving tone, he stepped away. I didn't know what to think. I was shocked because until then I had only been averaging positions at a loss. He saw me adding positions one by one. I opened four positions in a row and they were all losing. In the end, I closed at a loss. The logic behind my actions was based on the possibility of a pullback, which would have allowed me to avoid losses and close at zero. Think about how stupid that was! Yes, I was an inexperienced trader, but nonetheless, I had spent several years around the site before I had an account. So the thought that I had made a typical rookie mistake tormented my heart and fragile trader's ego. Sam's remark was a good lesson for me about the risk/return ratio. There is no point in adding more of the same to bad positions, thereby increasing risk. That's no way to trade in the market.
Averaging an unprofitable position
...Very often traders continue to open in a predetermined direction, which managed to become unprofitable. They strive to break-even, and if they are lucky, they may even close with a small profit. This is called averaging out unprofitable positions.
The first time I entered the market I met an old and wise man named Sam. He treated me with sympathy. I kept trying to make Sam laugh by telling him jokes and anecdotes. Knowing that I was a novice, he would come to my desk in the mornings and ask questions about upcoming economic data, hoping that I would start paying attention to the right indicators sooner or later. As I traded, I noticed Sam watching me from his corner of the floor.
At the end of my first working week, Sam, my new guru, took me aside and said: "Jack, you're Armenian, aren't you? Don't forget, my boy, that loss averaging has killed more Armenian traders than Turks." Having said this in a loving tone, he stepped away. I didn't know what to think. I was shocked because until then I had only been averaging positions at a loss. He saw me adding positions one by one. I opened four positions in a row and they were all losing. In the end, I closed at a loss. The logic behind my actions was based on the possibility of a pullback, which would have allowed me to avoid losses and close at zero. Think about how stupid that was! Yes, I was an inexperienced trader, but nonetheless, I had spent several years around the site before I had an account. So the thought that I had made a typical rookie mistake tormented my heart and fragile trader's ego. Sam's remark was a good lesson for me about the risk/return ratio. There is no point in adding more of the same to bad positions, thereby increasing risk. That's no way to trade the market.
Romantic, what can I say... Wise guru and student, you should not doubt the words of the guru. But you must agree that this story can be told on the contrary adding to the thesis that the price sooner or later returns to its MO for a certain period, all the rebound TS are based on it in the flat.
We can continue the logic and come to the conclusion that there are no flat conditions on the market because the price never rises to the mean value, or that there are no "attractors", "levels", etc. But that is not the case.
Martingale works fine for rebounding TSs and bad for trend ones, for the simple reason that it is based on the assumption of a pullback. Now reasoning further and examining the statistics of the market being in a trend and flat state, we conclude that the average ratio is 15/85%. That is, the pullback systems are more than 5 times more reliable than the trend ones. And Martin works in the plus side with probability (1- 1/ 5.6). This is very rough reasoning, but nevertheless it is correct.
When trend is recognized, trend methods are switch on, when the flat methods are switch on, therefore, we may work with trend by the principle of "antimartingale" and martingale on the flat where it is profitable. No one is forcing us to work directly.
I`m confused by too emotional cries of the majority who are going to lose anyway. As a deposit of less than 10K $ is too risky, there is no margin of safety, besides, as a rule, strictly trend or strictly flat strategy is used, naturally, the average spread is too big and no MM will not help in this case.
Martingale works great for rebounding TPs and bad for trending ones, for the simple reason that it is based on the assumption of a pullback. Now reasoning further and examining the statistics of finding the market in a trend and flat state, we come to the conclusion that 15\85% on average ratio is. That is, the pullback systems are more than 5 times more reliable than the trend ones. And Martin works in the plus side with probability (1- 1/ 5.6). This is very rough reasoning, but nevertheless it is correct.
Really? Who says? Pruf all figures and confirmation that they are correct in the studio.
When trend is recognized, then trend methods are switch on, when the flat is recognized, then the flat methods are switch on and so we may work with trend by the principle of "antimartingale" and martingale on the flat where it is profitable. Nobody forces to work in a straight line.
There he is... And the guys didn't know.
If they did, they wouldn't be so uncompromising about martin.
I can lay them out, but I will have to check them manually if I want to or to write mql5 code by my own algorithm. I will put out the figures as soon as I bring them to a normal form.
I will use another mql5 code, because I need to study different time series, from different sources, artificial, etc. Unfortunately custom quotes are not available in mt5 and there is no functionality for their generation and testing on arbitrary quotes of TS logic.
Martingale works fine for rebounding TPs and poorly for trending ones, for the simple reason that it is based on the assumption of a pullback.
...we conclude that the average ratio is 15/85%. That is, rolling systems are more than 5 times more reliable than trend systems.
And Martin works in the plus side with probability (1- 1\5.6). This is very rough reasoning, but still correct.