Who has already tried the Signals subscription to get on the tail of ATC 2012 participants? - page 31
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
If two runners run at the same speed, the one who started first, i.e. the one who already has an advantage, will finish first.
It is the same with signals. If the Provider already has a profit and the Subscriber has just synchronized, the Subscriber has no chance even to catch up with the Provider. And you are going to overtake him. But for that you need the prices in your account and the ISP's account to move at different speeds.
For some local pundits, this commonplace truth seems absurd.
That's why we are pundits, Yuri.
Outrunning the provider's equity is very easy, especially if the provider is clearly cautious (although playing on the plus side). To do this, it is only necessary and sufficient to put a copying multiplier greater than unity.
That's what we are wise men for, Yuri.
It is very easy to outperform the provider's equity, especially if he is clearly cautious (although he is playing on the plus side). For this, it is only necessary and sufficient to put a copying multiplier greater than unity.
Yeah, it all seems so easy when you don't take into account all eventualities, e.g. that the price may go against the grain after the synchronization? Price, unlike the provider, is not always cautious.
The provider in this case will be at a loss, only much less than the subscriber and his advantage will become even more significant.
Therefore, the option to synchronize with the Provider having the advantage on the difference between the equity and the balance, i.e. when the Provider's equity is lower than the balance, is the most optimal. Whichever way the price goes, the advantage is not going anywhere.
Don't try to attribute to me again something I didn't say, your own bullshit.
We are talking about the difference between equity and balance. If the subscriber gets synchronized when the provider's equity is higher than the balance, and the subscriber himself has the same equity as the balance at the moment of initial synchronization, he has no chance to beat the provider's equity as both prices and trades will be synchronized later.
I don't care what the provider's balance is, and I don't care what my balance is. I only care about equity.
And equity will change proportionally regardless of the date the trades were opened. If the Provider opened yesterday and has a profit, while I signed today, I won't start the calculation from yesterday's balance but from the equity at the moment of signing.
I wish you to do the same (c).
Yeah, it all seems so easy when you don't consider all the possibilities, e.g. that the price might go against the grain after the synchronisation? The price, unlike the provider, is not always cautious.
In this case, the provider would be at a disadvantage, only much less than the subscriber.
Therefore, the option to synchronise with the provider, having an equity advantage over the provider, i.e. when the provider's equity is lower than the balance, is the best option. No matter where the price goes, the advantage is not going anywhere.
Yuri, again, stop looking at the balance. It may be negative.
It has nothing to do with funds.
Yuri, again, stop looking at the balance. It can be negative.
And it has nothing to do with funds.
Controversially.... Why shouldn't a few signals on a percentage of a dollar...
Well, then another offer: Subscribers must be able to choose the pairs to copy.
Case: Provider trades about 25 pairs at the same time. A subscriber wants to follow 10 of them.
Provider takes 25 signals on different pairs (mono currency trades). A Subscriber may subscribe to 10 at a time (current rules do not allow this).
Variant 2: Provider makes multi-currency trade to one account and subscriber copies what he wants... (suggestion)
p.p. Option 3: ?
You decide which side you are on.
People are interested in the % per month and the level of drawdown, and how many pairs and the TS in the cocktail it does not matter ...
If two runners run at the same speed, the first to finish is the one who started first, i.e. the one who already has an advantage.
It's the same with signals. If the Provider already has a profit, while the Subscriber has just synchronized, the Subscriber has no chance even to catch up with the Provider. And you are going to overtake him. But for that you need the prices in your account and the ISP's account to move at different speeds.
For some local pundits, this commonplace truth seems absurd.
Therefore, the option to synchronise with the ISP by having an equity-balance differential advantage, i.e. when the ISP's equity is lower than the balance, is most optimal.
If two runners run at the same speed, the first to finish will be the one who started first, i.e. the one who already has an advantage.
It's the same with signals. If the Provider already has a profit and the Subscriber has just synchronized, the Subscriber has no chance even to catch up with the Provider. And you are going to overtake him. But for that you need the prices in your account and the ISP's account to move at different speeds.
For some local pundits, this commonplace truth seems absurd.
Well, it's not like they are running in a straight line. If the provider is in the red (has gone deep into the woods), then there is a chance to overtake him, and if we wait for equity on this trade to come to zero as MQ suggests, then the profit will be missed. It seems obvious.
So the only sensible way to synchronise is to copy the ISP's equity line from the start of the copying, i.e. copying everything.
With the fact that I'm buying Coke on January 1, 2012.