Off-topic posts - page 10

New comment
 
Keith Watford:

It is not allowed to have multiple user names.

You asked your initial question

and then followed up as

so I guess that there was a reason. Weren't you notified of the reason?


No i didn't recieve anything, i don't even know how to use this platform , i just cam for a question it's above and i'm looking for answers if anyone could help with the martingale problem!!

If anyone know about C++ please read my message above and suggest me a solution.

 
Nelson Wanyama:
I was searching for the topic then I found it here. 😂✔✔
do you face the same problem as me ? Lol
 
itrade31: help with the martingale problem!!
Martingale, guaranteed to blow your account eventually. If it's not profitable without, it is definitely not profitable with.
          Martingale vs. Non Martingale (Simplified RoR vs Profit and the Illusions) - MQL5 programming forum 2015.02.11

Why it won't work: Calculate Loss from Lot Pips - MQL5 programming forum 2017.07.11

 
William Roeder:
Martingale, guaranteed to blow your account eventually. If it's not profitable without, it is definitely not profitable with.
          Martingale vs. Non Martingale (Simplified RoR vs Profit and the Illusions) - MQL5 programming forum 2015.02.11

Why it won't work: Calculate Loss from Lot Pips - MQL5 programming forum 2017.07.11

No, it's not the case! I know about the stragety and about martingale, martingale works only with working stratgy...

The strategy works fine, and even with Martingale works too, and i backtest it for more than 6000 trades and the account never got blown. i have everything setup in place!


Just i wanna improve the profit and while i was cheking the charts i found that the problem: (here it is in case you didn't see the message above)

If Buys Signal Show, EA Buys $2.. lost , step 1 martingale buys again $4 ...lost, step 2 mtg buys again $12 ... lost , in step 3 sell signal shows up!!! martingale buys with $36 instead of selling with $36!?


And more than 20% of the trades had another signal showing while MTG is in step 3, and they were wining signals, and while i'm using only 3 martingale step so this will increase the profit with more than 20%

 

Hello, I paid a programmer to make an inductor for me. Now I would like to add an internal or external backtest but I would like the mq4 code, is there any free?
I don't know how to program and the programmer doesn't answer me anymore.
 
Jean Francois Le Bas:

what about it ?

you close your buy, and there is another buyer who gets his order filled, then he closes when the price goes up.

where is the problem ? nobody loses

it's not the same person at the opening of the trade and at the close...which would be a problem if it was

First of all - take a scenario where you buy an asset with 100X levarage - and it goes down 100pips (approximately). You get margin call and wipe the account. Someone lost.

Second, I suppose what Alain hint in his response (you have to take into account all participants) the meaning is:
Lets assume a simplified market, with only two participants. You and me for the sake of the example. You buy an asset at a 30X levarage from me. I have an open sell, you have an open buy.

When you want to get out of your buy, you need to sell it back to me (as I'm the only buyer in the simplified market). 
You can do it at 3 stages:
A. On the price you bought it and I sold it to you - Then we both lose only the commissions and spreads/swaps etc. 
B. You sell it at a higher price than that you bought from me - then you are in profit and I'm in a loss.
C. You sell it at a lower price than that you bought it from me - then you are in a loss and I'm in profit.

This is simplification of what happens in the market, what you did in your example is pass the chain on to the next buyer/seller - it doesn't matter. As the total money in the market never changes - it just moves from one participant to the other - so the clear meaning is that there are only 3 outcomes: A. everyone is in break even (minus commission etc..) which is only theoretical - never really happens. B+C - someone looses someone profits.


 
Amir Yacoby:

First of all - take a scenario where you buy an asset with 100X levarage - and it goes down 100pips (approximately). You get margin call and wipe the account. Someone lost.

Second, I suppose what Alain hint in his response (you have to take into account all participants) the meaning is:
Lets assume a simplified market, with only two participants. You and me for the sake of the example. You buy an asset at a 30X levarage from me. I have an open sell, you have an open buy.

When you want to get out of your buy, you need to sell it back to me (as I'm the only buyer in the simplified market). 
You can do it at 3 stages:
A. On the price you bought it and I sold it to you - Then we both lose only the commissions and spreads/swaps etc. 
B. You sell it at a higher price than that you bought from me - then you are in profit and I'm in a loss.
C. You sell it at a lower price than that you bought it from me - then you are in a loss and I'm in profit.

This is simplification of what happens in the market, what you did in your example is pass the chain on to the next buyer/seller - it doesn't matter. As the total money in the market never changes - it just moves from one participant to the other - so the clear meaning is that there are only 3 outcomes: A. everyone is in break even (minus commission etc..) which is only theoretical - never really happens. B+C - someone looses someone profits.


Thanks Amir to express my thoughts...I am just tired to see people talk about what they don't know or don't understand as if they were detaining the ultimate truth.
 
Amir Yacoby:

First of all - take a scenario where you buy an asset with 100X levarage - and it goes down 100pips (approximately). You get margin call and wipe the account. Someone lost.

Second, I suppose what Alain hint in his response (you have to take into account all participants) the meaning is:
Lets assume a simplified market, with only two participants. You and me for the sake of the example. You buy an asset at a 30X levarage from me. I have an open sell, you have an open buy.

When you want to get out of your buy, you need to sell it back to me (as I'm the only buyer in the simplified market). 
You can do it at 3 stages:
A. On the price you bought it and I sold it to you - Then we both lose only the commissions and spreads/swaps etc. 
B. You sell it at a higher price than that you bought from me - then you are in profit and I'm in a loss.
C. You sell it at a lower price than that you bought it from me - then you are in a loss and I'm in profit.

This is simplification of what happens in the market, what you did in your example is pass the chain on to the next buyer/seller - it doesn't matter. As the total money in the market never changes - it just moves from one participant to the other - so the clear meaning is that there are only 3 outcomes: A. everyone is in break even (minus commission etc..) which is only theoretical - never really happens. B+C - someone looses someone profits.


your example is flawed. Of course as I said before, with only two participants there can be only 1 winner and 1 loser. But is there only two participants ??? I reiterate my affirmation : there can be absolutely no loser in the markets if both buyers and sellers buy/sell and close at the right time. The only loser is then the broker of course, which has to pay, but in the end there are so many losers that the broker will still be positive.


and what do you mean there is so much money in the markets ? I can open a 1 trillion order right at the lowest of the year and make millions that the broker will have to pay. 10 million people can do the exact same as me, and the broker will have to pay 10 Million times the profits. Then the market will be zero ? what's your understanding of the markets ??


Jeff

 
Jean Francois Le Bas:

your example is flawed. Of course as I said before, with only two participants there can be only 1 winner and 1 loser. But is there only two participants ??? I reiterate my affirmation : there can be absolutely no loser in the markets if both buyers and sellers buy/sell and close at the right time. The only loser is then the broker of course, which has to pay, but in the end there are so many losers that the broker will still be positive.


and what do you mean there is so much money in the markets ? I can open a 1 trillion order right at the lowest of the year and make millions that the broker will have to pay. 10 million people can do the exact same as me, and the broker will have to pay 10 Million times the profits. Then the market will be zero ? what's your understanding of the markets ??


Jeff

No, sorry thats not correct.
The broker can not lose, and the simplified market example ilustrates it very well.

For 2 participants market, I have 1000 USD balance and you have same balance. We both open a 1 standart usd lot (10$ per pip). This means that I open buy of 100K usd worth and so do you. But the only money in the markets is our 2000 dollars, together. The rest of the 198K borrowed to us by the broker, and he will take it back when you close your position or margin call (99K borrowed to each). So as you see, the broker can not lose.
The money in the markets that all participants brought from their own money, is the amount of money that stays in the market. It never grows(actually it decreases). Each position closing, that amount of 2000 usd is divided again between all participants. So its clear that someone must lose and the broker never loses. Even if there are a milion traders, their total sum never grows and it redivides each time they trade. So its like the kids chairs game, same participants, and same amount of money each time(actually less) so there are not enough chairs. Brokers dont donate.
And to make things even harder for traders, the amount of 2000 usd that you and I put to the market, decreases each time we open close positions because the broker takes its share.

* its enough to understand that brokers dont lose in order to see that same amount of money on same participants reshuffeled must cause losers and winners. Money is not added from 3rd party other then the traders themselves. It actually taken from the table by the broker. So if all are breakeven,no losers. Other than that, losers are a must
 
Amir Yacoby:
No, sorry thats not correct.
The broker can not lose, and the simplified market example ilustrates it very well.

For 2 participants market, I have 1000 USD balance and you have same balance. We both open a 1 standart usd lot (10$ per pip). This means that I open buy of 100K usd worth and so do you. But the only money in the markets is our 2000 dollars, together. The rest of the 198K borrowed to us by the broker, and he will take it back when you close your position or margin call (99K borrowed to each). So as you see, the broker can not lose.
The money in the markets that all participants brought from their own money, is the amount of money that stays in the market. It never grows(actually it decreases). Each position closing, that amount of 2000 usd is divided again between all participants. So its clear that someone must lose and the broker never loses. Even if there are a milion traders, their total sum never grows and it redivides each time they trade. So its like the kids chairs game, same participants, and same amount of money each time(actually less) so there are not enough chairs. Brokers dont donate.
And to make things even harder for traders, the amount of 2000 usd that you and I put to the market, decreases each time we open close positions because the broker takes its share.

* its enough to understand that brokers dont lose in order to see that same amount of money on same participants reshuffeled must cause losers and winners. Money is not added from 3rd party other then the traders themselves. It actually taken from the table by the broker. So if all are breakeven,no losers. Other than that, losers are a must

You're not logical. What if I make a perfect trade with that 100K borrowed (1.0 lot). I spot the bottom perfectly, without any drawdown (or very little, let's say 12 pips) and I make a 10,000 pips profit over several years. Won't the broker have to pay me $100K one day ???

YES and he lost the money he lent me

BROKER LOSES

my god can't you understand basic rhetoric ?

1...34567891011121314151617...131
New comment
Reason: