If profitable EAs ? - page 6
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
Hello all!
can anyone explain to me what kind of strategy this is - a rolling stone???
What's the point? How does it work?
I don't know what it's all about... i don't know what it's about... i know martin, but not ovalyashka.
I used the word rubble in describing my strategy, but in fact it's called Stop&Go, if anything :)
Search the search engine for different variations of the strategy dolls and avalanche on the four is certainly there.
Hi all!
can someone explain to me what kind of strategy this is - a marshmallow?
what's the trick? how it works?
if it's no secret... Although they talk about it so much that everyone seems to know what it's about, but I do not know... I know a martin, but the marshmallow does not
Chumbley .
A price range is taken. For example a morning flat, support and resistance levels or one hour candle (15M, 30M, 4H).
At the High price (selected range), for example a candlestick, we place a Buy Stop order, the Stop Loss of this order is placed at the Low price (selected range).
Take Profit is equal to the value of the selected range from the open price of the order.
At the Low price (selected range), for example, a Sell Stop order is placed and the Stop Loss is set at the High price (selected range)
Take Profit is equal to the value of the selected range from the open price of the order.
Further after it has triggered, one of the Stop orders is opened. The volume of the opposite Stop order is doubled.
Now we wait if the order closes at Take, we start from the beginning, search for a Range and so on.
If it closes at Stop Loss, an order will immediately open in the opposite direction with a volume that has increased by 2 times.
If it closes again at the Stop Loss, an order opens in the opposite direction with the volume of the closed order increased by 2 times.
And so on, until the order closes at Take-Through or the deposit is wiped out.
Come on :) To me, it looks like Nevalyashka is the analogue of Avalanche...
Avalanche is the same as Ilan - there is an accumulation and averaging of openings.
Chumbley works on a different principle (the approximate logic is described in the post above) - it opens with an increased lot based on closing results.
There are variations, but in principle there are two algorithms: a) Ilan=Lavina and b) Martin=Nevalyashka.
There may be other names.
How do I know what kind of martin you are trading? What do you mean by "step 22"? What are the odds? What kind of martin do you have, which one out of a hundred options? I asked in Russian - what is the average loss (or gain) per bet?
If I understood correctly, do you mean the profit of 6 five-figure points? Then with 0,01 lot we get the winnings of $6 ? If so, then we need a deposit of 30M times more. In other words, $180M. And, for 100000 martingale cycles in a row we are 99% sure that we will not lose even once. At the same time we will get a total profit of $600K.
Not bad, considering the near guarantee of getting (99%). One question remains - does the $180M holder need $0.6M profit over 50 years of trading (a reasonable time for 100000 martingale cycles). I think this money would be more profitable to invest in a more profitable venture.
Example - you have 10000 quid, initial lot 0.01, SL=10 (4 digit points) which means loss of 1$ when losing a 0.01 lot bet, TP=20, series of continuous losses no matter what TS, last bet wins:
10000-2^0-2^1-2^2-2^3-2^4-2^5-2^6-2^7-2^8-2^9-2^10-2^11+2*2^12=14,097 - balance drawdown is $ 5,905 for profit of $4,097, the deposit can withstand 12 losing bets and after opening 13th bet will remain free money 1800$, so the drawdown on equity on the thirteenth will not exceed 1600$ (it was at very democratic stopout level of 20%). But there is a chance that the last stake will be lost and there would not be enough money left for the 14th one. And all sorts of commissions, swaps, spreads and other goodness are not taken into account.
With eagle-return type systems 14 or more losses in a row is far from the limit, it could be worse.
Conclusion - only martin does not save the TS, if it is initially unsuccessful, you need something else to increase the probability of winning.
Who needs a really profitable one, you can try this one
< accordingto terms of useno advertising allowed
Even if we don't reach the calculated drawdown, we will be helped (on Real) to come to the drawdown with all available funds! That's why it's better not to allow more than 30% drawdown!
And on mothballs, martins and on ilan, avalanche is better to forget!
By the way, "If ..." and "Is there ..." have a different meaning!
With an eagle-reckoning type system, 14 or more losses in a row is far from the limit, it could be worse.
Conclusion - marting the TS alone does not save if it is initially unsuccessful, something else is needed to increase the probability of winning.
It saves. I've done the math. I'll say it again - when a deposit of 32M or more is higher than our minimum loss - then for 100000 consecutive martingale cycles there is no loss with 99% probability.
You suggested 10K quid - it's very little. You need at least 32M - then the martin will save, the total winnings for all time will be 100K.
< согласно Условия использования реклама запрещена>
What a paranoia...
Eh...
It saves. I've done the math. I'll say it again - when a deposit of 32M or more is higher than our minimum loss - then for 100,000 consecutive martingale cycles there is no loss with 99% probability.
You suggested 10K quid - that's very little. We need at least 32M - then a martin would do well to save, the total gain over all time would be 100K.
You are just a theorist. Those who have the means you mentioned do not look at forex and do not accept such ratios of risk to gain.
Strange, but why don't those with "designated funds" look at forex? They must be "theorists" too?
That's why they don't look, because the benefits are too small. 0.6M for a lifetime, for which you have to keep a 180M deposit ??? What kind of investor in their right mind would go for that ?
It is you who are a theorist. And they are practitioners.