1200 subscribers!!! - page 155
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
Yes, I did. I got an answer, thank you. We'll look into it. I'm not allowed to write anything else now?
I think they deleted an entire thread when we asked them to check this person's honesty. It's best not to question the competence of the site's administration here. I think they know everything... probably.
If you don't know the difference between the signals you are sending and the ones you are receiving every week, you don't have a clue why it's good to follow them.)
You should create a stable signals with at least a year history and you will have subscribers, and the administration will deal with scammers.
Forgotten, or at least it doesn't look like a position in favour of cheaters
Even the kitchen didn't help here. Once again declaring his quotes unmarketable and cancelling his losses on such a shoddy trade is not an option.
I wonder what company he will negotiate with this time to have his trading history drawn? )))
He just turned on his martin.
When he made a loss, they redrawn his story again. and he told clients that the broker met him halfway, because the quotes were out of market.
as we can see, on this signal the history was not only drawn before the monitoring, but during the monitoring it was redrawn.
As long as they are few in number, they are profitable to MetaQuotes. Because they are few in number, they do not spoil their reputation, and they attract subscribers. As a result, MetaQuotes get a stable profit.
They will only be banned when the number of people with drawn statistics begins to affect the reputation of MetaQuotes themselves, but I think the likelihood of such an event is low.
where will they get the proof? and it is not profitable for them to go against their clients.
and that they will go against the broker and say "your story is drawn"?
where will they get the proof? and it is not profitable for them to go against their clients.
Although there have already been repeated precedents where, with a longstanding domestically excellent history, the "loners" have been merged into the rubble... "singles", so to speak. And there have already been many indignations as to why this is the case. And many of the subscribers did. They have written reviews saying "they are drawing, do something" and so on.
I told you a long time ago that the pre-flashing history should not be shown in the service.
Or put it in such an arsehole on the signal page that it is hard to find. whoever is interested in the pre-monitored history, let them look.
Create a separate tab on the signal page" Accountbalance line before adding it to the service". anyway, metaquotes have no other information about the account before monitored, nor do they havethe Equity line before monitored.
What's also interesting is that this doesn't seem to be seen in mt5.
So maybe they don't make fraudulent signals under mt5 because there aren't many subscribers?
Yes, only on a different broker. I suspect they are not colluding with brokers, but have somehow learnt how to do it in MT4.
Theoretically it is possible to change the file with the trading history in the terminal, but the service does not look at it.
I don't know if it's possible to change the trading history file on the broker's server, but the service doesn't look it.
So it's unlikely the broker doesn't know about the signal.
The phrase in the article"I have no doubt that this is a "drawn" chart. " -- unsubstantiated bullshit.
Where in this post does he say it's the ultimate truth? it's his IMHO. just his opinion.
What are you talking about now? What percentage of trading strategies and accounts are losing? 1% or 99%?
There is no good history on those accounts even before the monitoring.
He has a good good brokerage before monitoring.
I'm not at all an advocate of signal leakers and their providers -- but reading the allegations in this thread is frankly sickening.
There is evidence of fraud - justify it (at least to some extent).
There is no substantiation, only allegations - why bullshit?
The only thing confusing here is the accounting in the signal statistics -- trading before the signal is monitored in the service. Yes, this statistic is not complete, because at least there is no information about drawdown. But the absence of such information is not the reason to cry "cheater". Judge reasonably.
the whole forum is full of imho's from people. where have you seen any evidence in other threads?
If you don't like reading people's opinions, don't read them!
they are silent because only justification and power have weight -- no one has power and no one gives justification, just unsubstantiated -- your cries of "crook" look like childish snot on braces.
In the meantime, it's the same story again... and again: "where's the proof?". Precedents... they don't exist in law for nothing... ?
Stop talking nonsense and looking like a poking idiot -- I have no idea who Yegor Vlasov is at all -- or cite at least one of my quotes on the subject