Is martin so bad? Or do you have to know how to cook it? - page 62
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
The task of adapting to the trend would be easier...
Some comments on martingale.
I have been working on an EA based on martingale for a long time for the sake of interest. I should say straight away that I knew in advance what I was going for. Just interest.
I started with a dumb algorithm, which is close to coin flipping. Gradually improved expectation of profit of the basic algorithm. I have started from 8 steps of doubling the lot. By adding trend indicators and improving the basic algorithm in another way I understood that decreasing the number of doubling steps is more profitable. So far I have reached 2 steps. This is an Expert Advisor not based on martin but using martin.
I will optimize it further. How will it be with one step (in addition to the initial one)? Won't the Expert Advisor turn into one that does not use the Martin?
The conclusion confirms what has been said a hundred times but has not come to many people's minds - a Martin will not improve a bad EA. A good one does not need it.
Some comments on martingale.
I have been working on an EA based on martingale for a long time for the sake of interest. I should say straight away that I knew in advance what I was going for. Just interest.
I started with a dumb algorithm, which is close to coin flipping. Gradually improved expectation of profit of the basic algorithm. I have started from 8 steps of doubling the lot. By adding trend indicators and improving the basic algorithm in another way I understood that decreasing the number of doubling steps is more profitable. So far I have reached 2 steps. This is an Expert Advisor not based on martin but using martin.
I will optimize it further. How will it be with one step (in addition to the initial one)? Won't the Expert Advisor turn into one that does not use the Martin?
The conclusion confirms what has been said a hundred times but has not come to many people's minds - a Martin will not improve a bad EA. A good one does not need it.
I followed a manual system for a long time, where the entry could be with averaging, up to 3 steps. The doubling was not mandatory, there was just the total risk of all 3 trades from stop level and I chose more or less depending on the situation.
I was happy with it, averaging simply allowed me to be in the market more often, especially manually, when I was not constantly sitting in front of the monitor.
I found out later that it "looks like" martin, but I don't think so. It's just the use of so called "raising the stakes" from game theory, which is one of the elements of martin, but it's kind of not the only one.
When is Martin interesting? :
1. The number of losing trades in a row is low.
2. Stops are reasonable.
3. there is a guarantee that all this will end up winning (probability of winning continuously increases).
4 Expected winnings are incomparably higher than the stops.
When is Martin interesting? :
1. The number of losing trades in a row is low.
2. Stops are reasonable.
3. there is a guarantee that all this will end up winning (probability of winning continuously increases).
4 Expected winnings incomparably higher than the stops.
Ha. If you know the answers to at least two of the 4 questions, you don't need a martin ))))
Ha. If you know the answers to at least two of the 4 questions, you don't need a martin )))
1. Competent filtering of reversal signals.
2. When the reversal signal is destroyed, the counter-trend position is closed (stop).
3. the further into the trend, the higher the probability of reversal (monotonicity).
The trend is your profit. No profits - until the reversal signal in the pair with the breakdown of the trend.
1. Competent filtering of reversal signals.
2. When the reversal signal is destroyed, the counter-trend position is closed (stop).
3. The further along the trend, the greater the probability of reversal (monotonicity).
The trend is your profit. No profits - until the reversal signal in the pair with a breakdown of the trend.
Well basically yes, only the 3rd is fundamentally wrong, but not the point.
Just answer the question then - why do most if not all margos close a minimum profit when netting without even trying to sit in the trend, contrary to the 4th point, don't you find the contradiction?
Well in general yes, only the 3rd is fundamentally wrong, but not the point.
Just answer the question then - why do most if not all margos close the minimum profit when netting without even trying to sit in the trend, contrary to the 4th point, don't you find the contradiction?
Let the price rise. Trade on the trend. Alexei, what monkeys, what grid, what profit?
Who the hell knows why they don't try to sit in the trend. Not trained in how to do it, I guess.
Well in general yes, only the 3rd is fundamentally wrong, but not the point.
Any trend is a higher level flat. A reversal is inevitable, the main thing is to understand the dimension of the flat and use adequate reversal indicators. In this case, the principle works: "with each chair our chances grow".
When is Martin interesting? :
1. The number of losing trades in a row is low.
2. Stops are reasonable.
3. there is a guarantee that all this will end up winning (probability of winning continuously increases).
4 The expected winnings are incomparably higher than the stops.