Discussion of article "Martingale as the basis for a long-term trading strategy" - page 2
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 do not take into account that unlike other MMs, martingale is guaranteed to lead to failure. This was mathematically proven long ago.
And so martingale is not a variant of MM, but just rubbish for illiterate hamsters a la "the state has strangled Cashbury".
It is not mathematically proven that anything in forex does not lead to a drain :-)
everyone get out of here ? :-)
It is not mathematically proven that anything in forex does not lead to a drain :-)
everybody get out of here ? :-)
It hasn't been proven otherwise either
To assess the feasibility of martingale, you can do without mathematical calculations. Statistics is enough, and it is as follows: the percentage of successful traders (for all strategies, not only for martingale) according to different sources is about 20% of the total number of traders (both on Forex and stock markets).
That is, the losers are about 80%. And as for martingale, it is most likely 99%.
And this is normal for predicting such a complex process as the price movement of financial markets.
You do not take into account that unlike other MMs, martingale is guaranteed to lead to failure. This has been mathematically proven long ago.
So martingale is not a variant of MM, but just rubbish for illiterate hamsters ala "the state has strangled Cashbury".
Good afternoon, please provide me with a link where it is mathematically proven that martingale leads to a drain. Thank you!
Good afternoon, please provide me with a link where it is mathematically proven that martingale leads to a drain. Thank you!
directly on wikipedia, see the section "example"
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BB
Specifically there mathematically proved the zero result of the game, provided that the winnings are equal to the losses. I.e. in our way - there are no spread/swap and commissions. With them the result of any zero (and even weakly profitable) strategy becomes negative.
directly on wikipedia, see the section "example"
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BB
Specifically there mathematically proved the zero result of the game, provided that the winnings are equal to the losses. I.e. in our way - there are no spread/swap and commissions. With them the result of any zero (and even weakly profitable) strategy becomes negative.
But if you slightly change the condition of the game and stop at the 1000th time making a profit of $ 1000. And then, for example, the next day start the game again, it turns out that the plum 1024 times does not come and we do not lose.
It turns out that this article does not prove anything and the result is not even zero.
Great article, thanks to the author for sharing it selflessly :)