Gorgeous Uncle Martin Gale - The Thorny Road to Millions or Total Collapse ! - page 11
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
Second question- What prevents you from increasing your risks and earning times more without losing stability? Lack of liquidity? Not enough shoulders? ))
Loss of stability is a hindrance. The highest stability is at zero risk, i.e. when all positions are closed.
No, the author has plenty of margin of safety in the context of a yearly period. (assuming that each month is at least 5% with a drawdown of no more than 10). However, we did not ask the author what he meant by "stable" (per month) and we do not know the distribution of drawdowns per month and the number of trades. Suddenly he made 2 deals within a month. The first one - in the red, the second - in the plus. It turned out to be 5% at 10 oversubscription. Well, I calculated that it is stable...- and figured out how much it would add up to a year)))) . It's a subjective notion of stability.)
Let the author answer, what prevents him from increasing his risks? You are wrong to suggest this, but it is unlikely that the loss of stability prevents him from doing so. He probably has not even thought about it. If he had thought about it, he would have said so in the beginning - not in 5/20 months, but in 70/10 years.
The only thing that gets in the way is that he has failed us miserably).
However, we did not ask the author what he meant by "stable" (per month)
If you pick up a certain balance of signals to enter, step, distance, their number, etc., everything may work out. Skeptics agree if you adjust the TS in such a way as to survive 3.4 thousand pips, you will get through any storm! The main thing is to fight yourself, greed and impatience!
It's all been calculated a long time ago.
With classical martingale with doublings in order not to lose 100K martingale cycles with 95% probability you need to have capital of about 32M.
Hence the formula.
100K martingale cycles is a reasonable number to have enough for a lifetime. Net profit turns out, respectively, 100K bets. And now the question - why the owner of a deposit of 32M bets needs 100K bets for 50 years? An ordinary bank deposit gives a much higher return with a much higher probability. (over 99%).
Reducing the number of cycles or confidence probability will reduce the capital required. But it will not always change the essence.
Martingale is about shifting frequent small losses into a zone of large and rare losses. And the only way to win with it is to stop using it in time (before this very rare and big loss, which gathered all small ones). Or this system can be "cut" in such a way, that nothing is left of the idea of martingale itself (the last winning compensates all losses), and we get just money management with few fillings, which has only a name from martingale.
What do the "insiders" think about the averaging, all orders with the same lot. Partial locking. Locking orders are closed by CU. Orders against the trend are opened virtually. Of course, such an EA can fail, but it will make money if the trend does not reverse.
What are your thoughts on this EA?
If possible, please, be specific and to the point.
Thank you.
You don't have to specify, because only drawdowns are stable every month. And the profitable months alternate. At least in my case, I don't know about the author's.
Martin requires careful calculation and redistribution of risk.
If all the calculations are done, it (martin) works very well and consistently produces profits.
What do the "insiders" think about the averaging, all orders with the same lot. Partial locking. Locking orders are closed by CU. Orders against the trend are opened virtually. Of course, such an EA can fail, but it will make money if the trend does not reverse.
What are your thoughts on this EA?
If possible, please, be specific and to the point.
Thank you.