As a subscriber, do you invest in Demo Account trading signals? - page 10

[Ken McCormick]

Ubzen:

@KenMcCormick:

Why bother trying to understand a Billion_Dollar Funds Manager. Imo, undertaking something like trading is a journey of understanding yourself. A fund_manager trades for different reasons than you and I. As you've stated, he's not interested in trying to return %850 for his members. He's mostly interested in keeping his job, beating inflation and staying above the required draw-down.

If you've given up on trading and believe in system selling instead then "yes to all men his own". But at what point does selling something which doesn't deliver become fraud. If your goose really lay golden-eggs would you sell the goose. These are the types of soul searching questions everyone turning tides must answer.

I have a cousin who never wants to take any risks. He always comes up with these brilliant ideas but want my money placed on the line. This bothers me given the fact that we both have about the same amount of assets. I believe a partnership works best when all parties have something to lose. But then again thats just me :) 

I agree about trading being a journey and the challenge for me is awesome, I love it. I am motivated to master the market. However, my comment was related to the fact that I read about, and hear of, so many funds losing money, managers resorting to fraud, and manipulation, and I feel bad for the investors who lose their money. So when I present a better strategy, it seems reasonable they should at least consider it when the manager is losing investor money. But it frustrates me that their ego gets in the way of looking for help. They just won't admit they need help. Not giving up trading, but I specialize in design of strategies, and so that is where I want to put time. I agree, products must perform and deliver, if it does not work in a live market, I would remove it, and fix it, or totally rebuild. Partners should have skin in the game, but when one knows the profitable strategy with a potential value in the billions, while the other partner supplies funds to the venture, in most cases the amount of funds will not match the value of the strategy. Example: If a strategy is built with potential of producing $5B in profit, by partner A, and partner B funds $100M to move the venture forward, then partner A, has way more value input than partner B. Also the time input by partner A would need to be given a value as well. Since your cousin has "brilliant" ideas, what stops you from funding it? Brilliant ideas are worth the venture, if in fact they are "brilliant".

[Ken McCormick]

angevoyageur:

No one said that, you can manipulate words at your advantage and after that refute what you invented. What I said (and others) is that a provider who run a strategy on a demo account is not dependable.

This is simply ridiculous. There are obviously always people who wins, and wins a lot in trading, even and mainly on crisis period. More amateurs in the game more money to catch. The big players are banks, they opened the forex market to have more capital to win and they obviously want that people trade on real account. Anyway all of that has nothing to do with the topic.

You are totally off-topic. This one is "as a subscriber do you invest in a demo account..." and not "as a provider do you try to catch money from the naive investors". It's now very clear what's your point of view, a provider takes less risk with the money of others, obviously. I guess we will soon see your signal provided on a demo account.

I invite all potential subscribers to read your post, it's very instructive.

Ok, you are right, I was off topic, for clarity, because you seem to have miss understood my statement, A strategy is always run in back test, then demo, before it goes live, even in big funds, and banks. They test it then put it live. They would be foolish not to. The same risk applies, because there is never a guarantee it will perform in the live market. Even strategies that have worked in real accounts in the past, may not work the same, in the future. That is why some funds go broke, even after performing well for years before. It is true, investors will move funds from managers who start losing money, no matter how well they did in the past. Every day is a new day.

Traders who trade other peoples money are not subject to the same level of stress caused by (fear of loss), as someone trading their own money. Many people at retirement will pick a non-family member to manage the money for that reason..... Ask any trader.... I would rather have a trader who is fearless to trade, because fear will cloud the mind, and cause losses. A trader can not be afraid of the market. I want to sell products, simply because of the income opportunity, same as money managers want more investors to manage investments for, besides his own money, and it is a lower risk. When I provide trading strategies for others to benefit, I am doing something good for others. I think living a good life, includes helping others when possible. I risk my time spent building strategies, and AEs, But my time is well spent for good cause. The more people I do good for, the better life I have lived. If I can enrich someone, I will. I can help more people by concentrating on providing profitable products, than I can watching trades. I will use my own product as well, but I need the ability to set it and let it auto trade, freeing my time up to develop signals, which this platform does not have yet. Fund managers who manage billions could use my strategies. I will not be able to show them the billions of dollars that I traded with it, but it does not mean it is undependable. A provider can be dependable with demos, live signals, and back tests, as long as they are tested, profitable, and the provider will backup the product with support. What if you thought to make computers available to the average person all over the world, but had no proven model, and needed some money to do it? Should you give it up because you have no proof it would be successful. I am glad Bill Gates took the risk on the idea, and made it happen. He has been well rewarded, as we all have. There are many investors willing to venture. The first to take the plunge usually gets the greatest rewards. When I have the best performing strategy in the world, I might make it exclusive to the first investor willing to give it a test, and when it produces, that investor will have the most valuable product in the world, and could become the top performing fund in the world. That is a multi trillion dollar potential. Think big, and make it happen. Dreams can become reality when a person dares to dream, plans the process forward, and acts on the plan. By the way, I mean no personal criticism toward you. Just sharing my thoughts and ideas. Be at Peace...:-)

[Ken McCormick]

Ubzen:

If I'm confident of my system which produces 850% per-year, I would find the 10_thousand dollars for my small account. Should that mean working 3-jobs as a Janitor | taking the loan from the credit card companies | borrowing the money from family members and friends | selling my car, house, and dog in the process | pitching my system to every or anyone who'll listen and willing to invest. I'll do anything in my power [except commit a crime] because I'm confident in my system. I wouldn't be upset at someone else because they wouldn't purchase my holy-grail. But thats just me.

Why $10,000. What if the trading strategy could be used by a mulit-billion dollar fund manager, who needs to deliver better returns to the investors? What good is a record with only $10,000? They place billions of dollars at risk every day. How would I prove the system to them? Would I just not even try, and not provide it at all? It would be a dis-service not provide them the means to enrich their life and those of their investors, if it is in my power to do so. I know and agree....."Put your money where your mouth is". It is the hard coded test, but when I do not have the billions of dollars, then I need a different approach. Just giving up is not acceptable. Using a low amount of money will not provide proof to a billion dollar fund. The strategy may not even produce the same percentage of returns either, as the billion dollar fund would. But show a billion dollar fund manager a strategy that could add only 5% more to the returns it gets now, and a wise manager should consider it. Because money runs to profit, the more profit a money manager produces, the more money investors will place for management. The more people helped to build wealth, the better life style will be able afford. That is why money managers, manage other peoples money..for the money. If  I did not have confidence in my analysis and testing, then I would need a different methodology for both. I would need one I can be confident in. I do have several strategies I am confident in, and I have confidence in my ability to identify profitable opportunity and build profitable trading signals and investment, trading strategies. I do not need a few bucks trading to build my confidence. If you need to have a track record in a real account to take the risk on a strategy, that is your limitation, that you set, you will miss out on great strategies. Consider this; Who is likely better at what they do: A trader, who does research, and develops systems while trading, or one who exclusively trades or specializes. Most people prefer specialists over "Jack of all trades". No pun.. I specialize in discovering and building trading strategies, and investment models, and I have very profitable strategies. If I spend my time watching trades, I will not find as many strategies that can produce profit. I am working on one where you get in the trade, with no retraction at all, no draw down. "In the money" from open to close. You get in at the start of the trend and out at the end of it. Example: the leg up or down. It will be available soon. But I will not test it with Millions or Billions. Whoever takes it for a test will be glad they did. They would be wise to make me an offer that keeps it exclusive to them. See, to me, faith has not limits. Take a risk, have faith, and go where you want to go.

[Rogerio Figurelli]

Contributing to the comparative analysis of signals based on demo accounts and real, which has shown interesting arguments from all sides, I decided measure some real facts from MQL5 social trading platform.

The idea was to compare the number of subscribers using the top five signals from MT4 and MT5 (i.e., 20 signals in total).

In this research, I found 3,888 subscribers (an average of 194 subscribers per trading signal).

Comparing the amount of subscribers across platforms, MT4 is the absolute leader with 3,082 (79%) subscribers against 806 (21%) of MT5.

But the most important fact for this topic is that, from this total, 2,314 (60%) are Demo accounts subscribers and just 1,574 (40%) subscribes to Real accounts.

In this pool, 44% of the voters at this moment prefer Real accounts, i.e., a number very near of the 40% quantitative research above.

My conclusion is that, although there are still many critics of the Demo signals, the reality is that this signals attract more subscribers here (and probably any other marketplace or social trading platform), maybe explained by its higher past performance.

[Ubzen]

@figurelli: 

Given your experience with signals, I'll like to ask some questions.

Per your heading "As a subscriber, do you invest in Demo Account trading signals?". Looking at your "comparative analysis" did you factor subscribers who are looking for freebie_signals? By "invest in Demo" were you including the freebies? I wonder how your "comparative analysis" would look if freebies were excluded? [thats if you haven't already].

With so_many people offering signals free which produces performances comparable with those of paid signals; what's your recommendation for a provider looking to profit off the service? How would this provider differentiate himself? [ apart from running heavy ads ].

[Ubzen]

@KenMcCormick:

I choose $10,000 because I believe that $85,000 the first year would be worth_if for most people. Anyways, you've made your points. You may have the last words on this topic and lets leave it there.

[Simon Gniadkowski]

KenMcCormick:
I disagree. What if you were capable of writing a signal that could turn $1,000,000 in to $100,000,000 in one year. But you could not lease it unless you have the $1Mil to test for real first, and for one year. Then you and the millionaire investors miss out on a valuable opportunity. Talent wasted. Therefore, test it in demo, if it works there, offer it out. If it does terrible, fix it and/or remove it. Investors take risk, with risk funds. What if you knew how to build a space shuttle, but could not get funding because you had not built one and flown it to the moon? How would you learn about the moon and space flight. You draw up plans, test, build and then deploy. That is the way forward.

A strategy that will turn $1m into $100m is also capable of turning $100 into $10,000  or $1,000 into $100,000

[Alain Verleyen]

figurelli:

Contributing to the comparative analysis of signals based on demo accounts and real, which has shown interesting arguments from all sides, I decided measure some real facts from MQL5 social trading platform.

The idea was to compare the number of subscribers using the top five signals from MT4 and MT5 (i.e., 20 signals in total).

In this research, I found 3,888 subscribers (an average of 194 subscribers per trading signal).

Comparing the amount of subscribers across platforms, MT4 is the absolute leader with 3,082 (79%) subscribers against 806 (21%) of MT5.

But the most important fact for this topic is that, from this total, 2,314 (60%) are Demo accounts subscribers and just 1,574 (40%) subscribes to Real accounts.

In this pool, 44% of the voters at this moment prefer Real accounts, i.e., a number very near of the 40% quantitative research above.

My conclusion is that, although there are still many critics of the Demo signals, the reality is that this signals attract more subscribers here (and probably any other marketplace or social trading platform), maybe explained by its higher past performance.

It's a fact that demo accounts, or free signal are popular and have a lot of subscribers. But it's also a fact that most people who subscribes to a signal don't know anything about risk, they are attracted by big numbers for growth percentage. I can't probably blame someone (a provider) who want to win money relatively easily taking advantage of the ignorance of subscribers.

Still I don't understand why Metaquotes allow in his Signals service to subscribe with real account to a provider with demo account. I am probably very naive.

[Ubzen]

angevoyageur: I can't probably blame someone (a provider) who want to win money relatively easily taking advantage of the ignorance of subscribers.

Yeah, the subscribers have_to take some responsibility too. But how lucrative is this business model anyway?

Still I don't understand why Metaquotes allow in his Signals service to subscribe with real account to a provider with demo account.

 My Guess: it was probably trying to model after what other Signals_Services look like.

I am probably very naive.

Yeah, join the naive club. I don't think you and I would be making money off ignorance anytime soon ;)

[Alain Verleyen]

Ubzen:

Yeah, the subscribers have_to take some responsibility too. But how lucrative is this business model anyway?

 My Guess: it was probably trying to model after what other Signals_Services look like.

Yeah, join the naive club. I don't think you and I would be making money off ignorance anytime soon ;)

Thanks, seems I am not alone, it's a comfort.

From what I can see, it's very profitable for some providers who benefits from the system : open a lot of demo accounts, try all sort of strategies, take big risk, after a while some survivors accounts should have the growth percentage required to attract subscriber. Then reduce your risk, you can then hope the signal will persist sufficient time to attract more subscribers.