1200 subscribers!!! - page 37
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
Without knowing the formula, you can talk about the rating "until you are blue in the face", especially if there are weighting coefficients.
Why study the whole rating, if you can take next to each other signals from MT5 showcase:
Without knowing the formula, you can talk about the rating "until you are blue in the face", especially if there are weighting coefficients.
Why study the whole rating, if you can take next to each other signals from MT5 showcase:
Well, the first ones are really better by price, don't you agree? Maybe for the rating this is one of the decisive factors.
I gave my example only to show that without knowing the formula, it is useless to talk about rating.
Moreover, as it turns out, the rating mixes objective (commercial) signal qualities with subjective (number of subscribers, price) qualities.
If subjective qualities outweigh objective ones, then it is useless to speak about rating.
I gave my example only to show that without knowing the formula, it is useless to talk about rating.
Moreover, as it turns out, the rating mixes objective (commercial) signal qualities with subjective (number of subscribers, price) qualities.
If the subjective qualities outweigh the objective -- then it is even more useless to talk about the rating.
The fact that subscribers are not interested in formula. 90% are interested in 1. profitability, 2. maximum drawdown, 3. number of weeks.
If there are no subscriptions to the signals that appear in the top, it means that the formula is wrong. It's as if rand() function is used in the formula.
The point is also that subscribers are not interested in the formula. 90% are interested in 1. profitability and 2. maximum drawdown.
If there are signals in the top without a single subscriber, it means the formula is wrong. It seems to me that rand() function is used in the formula.
What subscribers are interested in, we do not know.
Not only that -- as the signal under discussion showed -- they are only interested in "the number of subscribers" -- or they are not interested in anything at all -- they were stupidly advised this signal, so they signed up.
But the fact that the signal is evaluated using a complex multi-factor formula -- that's absolutely correct -- and here the MCs have done a tremendous job, that's undeniable.
The fact that MCs have combined qualitative and marketing metrics -- it's not all that straightforward and there are variations.
In any case -- without knowing the rating formula -- there is no substantive discussion.
What the subscribers are interested in -- we don't know.
Not only that -- as the signal under discussion showed -- they are only interested in "the number of subscribers" -- or they are not interested in anything at all -- they were just advised this signal, so they signed up.
But the fact that the signal is evaluated using a complex multi-factor formula -- that's absolutely correct -- and here the MCs have done a tremendous job, that's undeniable.
The fact that MCs have combined qualitative and marketing metrics -- it's not all that clear-cut and there are variations.
In any case -- without knowing the rating formula -- there is no substantive discussion.
What subscribers are interested in, maybe you don't know, but we do. If they don't subscribe to signals, then the formula is wrong.
You can buy 10 or even hundreds of subscribers without any formula.
Maybe you don't know what subscribers are interested in, but we do. ...
If you know what subscribers are interested in, then why aren't you at the top?
my conclusion - you can't get to the top without marketing - as long as the top will take into account subjective indicators (number of subscribers, price, etc.) - there's nothing to do in the service for the sake of subscribers.
If you know what subscribers are interested in, then why aren't you at the top?
My conclusion - without marketing, you can't get to the top - as long as the top will take into account subjective indicators (number of subscribers, price, etc.) - there's nothing to do in the service for the sake of subscribers.
I was once at the top, and after 4 months had more than 20 subscribers. The number of them began to grow dramatically.
And the more they signed up for a cheap signal (mostly 20-40$), the more they asked stupid and dumb questions. All of this will throw you off balance, especially if you're a functioning programmer.
And if you think someone has 1200 subscribers and it's really good, I don't think so.
At that price, messing around with subscribers all day and having that kind of responsibility, it's not worth it. It's only from the outside that it's so good.
You have a one-sided perception.
Think about others and immediately your picture of the world will collapse to the ground. And if you go deeper into the level of perception, you will be enlightened.
Someone would destroy his picture of the world when thinking about us.)
shut up
And the more you subscribe to the cheap signal (basically $20-40), the more you ask stupid and dumb questions. All this will throw you off balance, especially if you are a working programmer.
Petros, you are very restless. If 100 subscribers at $20 a signal and $1,600 a month knock you off-balance, maybe like the poet said:
If you're frail -- straight to the coffin.
Answering questions is not like writing a program. People write to me and ask me questions and I know how much time it takes.
This isn't the first time you've said that subscribers will throwme off-balance with their questions, so please don't worry about it again.