The right to publicly demonstrate the conclusions of a theoretical forum thread on a live account
- www.metatrader5.com
- Interesting and Humour
- Coding is the easy part of expert advisors
- Suggestion to forum admins
theory + demo signal
as a necessary and sufficient gentleman's kit of any such branch
theory + demo signal
as a necessary and sufficient gentleman's kit of any of these kinds of branches
The demo signal leaves doubts about the execution of orders, the reliability of the source information and the negative attitude of traders to demo accounts.
The demo signal leaves doubts about order execution, reliability of source information and traders' negative attitudes towards demo accounts.
So, open a signal on a real account and show screenshots in your branch without mentioning the signal. Who is not fool enough to look at the profile. Or put a monthly fee of $9999, I often see it with sellers in the market.
Dear forum participants,I think that the logical conclusion of any theoretical branch should be a public demonstration, in conditions of real trading, of the ideas and assumptions that the community of forum participants developed with the active participation of the topicstarter. The task of the branch host is to prove to his opponents the right course of thought in discussing the main idea of the branch's topic. But I think the author of a branch should earn this right of public demonstration, for example, by public exposure of the code of a developed indicator in open access in kodobase and get the permission of resource managers and/or moderators to this procedure, so as not to be banned for one reason or another, mainly in the suspicion of promoting dowtips. At the moment, many theoretical threads remain incomplete and the process of learning the market has stalled. Traders cannot change their viewpoint on the market in any way, other than through the prism of MA -ships and all sorts of levels, mystical numbers and waves. Your opinions.
The ideas and assumptions laid down, if they are correct, should usually become a trade secret ... you can at least earn something. :). Otherwise, we are dealing with the apparent intention of implementing an attempt to "change the dynamics" of the Market :). What's the point? Such an attempt is insane in any of its fundamentals, as it is doomed to fail, inherently. The criterion of truth is not practice, this is for the proletariat. The criterion of Truth is the correspondence of Projections to their Abstractions. Therefore, if it is a demonstration of achievement, let it be an advertisement, whatever. It is an ACHIEVEMENT!
Ideas and assumptions, if true, should generally become a trade secret ... you can at least make some money. :). Otherwise, we are dealing with the apparent intention of implementing an attempt to "change the dynamics" of the Market :). What's the point? Such an attempt is insane in any of its fundamentals, as it is doomed to fail, inherently. The criterion of truth is not practice, this is for the proletariat. The criterion of Truth is the correspondence of Projections to their Abstractions. Therefore, if it is a demonstration of achievement, let it be an advertisement, whatever. It is, after all, an ACHIEVEMENT!
Market cognition is impossible in principle: the market does not stand still and changes faster than these changes can be formalised in any way. Suppose you approximate a graph with a power series and then a new factor intervenes and you have to recalculate everything again. This is why the old indicators are still in use, they show only general trends and do not pretend to predict. The simpler and cruder the methods of analysis, the longer they will be used. I think there is hardly anything new to offer in terms of market mathematics. Everything that could be done, humanity has already done. The only thing left is to write trading robots that are not automated yet, but have shown their effectiveness. Theoretical developments are as useless as searching for the chemical formula of liverwurst.
Now many theoretical branches remain incomplete, and the process of market knowledge has stalled. Traders cannot change their view of the market in any other way, than through the prism of MA -ships and all sorts of levels, mystical numbers and waves. Your opinions.
It's not "can't", it's "doesn't make sense".
Everything that can be done has already been invented. The problem is that any technique on the market works only as long as it is used by a minority of participants. Regardless of its complexity.
As a result, the question arises - why look for a supercomplex technique, if it gives exactly the same chances for profit as the simplest one? The trader's task is to detect the moment when a technique is being used too often and to switch to a technique that is currently used by a minority.
I have long been convinced of this, and my League of Trading Systems confirms this thought. At present I am working out the system kernel, therefore I do not publish any reports, but I will do it in a couple of weeks.
theory + demo signal
as a necessary and sufficient gentleman's kit of any of these kinds of branches
The demo signal does not give practical, lasting results...
The right option:
Theory + test report for 2-3 years ( minimum ) + confirmation on demo for 2-3 months ( minimum ).
The demo signal does not give practical lasting results...
Correct option:
Theory + test report for 2-3 years ( minimum ) + confirmation on demo for 2-3 months ( minimum ).
the demo is more convincing in my opinion
The demo is compulsory, and should confirm the test report in part from the overall period.
A demo for 3 years would not be convincing...
The demo is a must, and should confirm the test report as a proportion of the total period.
A demo account for 3 years is impossible to pull off...
It seems to me, too, that a demo account is more convincing for such purposes. But the real account, it must be some kind of "trick". :)
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use