Why anyone who sells signals withdraws - page 7
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
All of this is because the % increase is not calculated correctly.
When an order is opened, the balance at that moment should be memorised. And when the order is closed, the growth percentage should be calculated in relation to this balance.
In this case no deposit or withdrawal will influence the growth percentage since these changes did not take place at the order opening.
And there will be no manipulations.
All of this is because the % increase is not calculated correctly.
When an order is opened, the balance at that moment should be memorised. And when the order is closed, the growth percentage should be calculated in relation to this balance.
In this case no deposit or withdrawal will influence the growth percentage since these changes did not take place at the order opening.
There will be no cheating.
According to the service, the percentage gain is calculated"to exclude the influence of withdrawals and deposits".
Only the growth percentage is not calculated for each trade, but between balance operations (withdrawals or deposits). Apparently this is done to reduce the computational load on the calculation system.
If you are interested, here is the link.
Growth Ratio K = (Balance before BO1 / Initial deposit) * (Balance before BO2 / Balance after BO1) * ... * (Balance before BOp/Balance after BOp1)Percentage Gain = (K - 1) * 100%.
The formula has such parameter as BEGINNING DEPOSIT . It spoils the whole picture, if the chronology of balance sheet transactions is broken with respect to chronology of trading operations. It is here (in the chronological order) that you need to put things in order. Then everything will count as it should!
A broken chronology shows that there is a serious problem in fixing the data in the system from the signal provider. There is some "vulnerability" which has not yet been closed and which is being exploited by some "advanced comrades"...
How they do it is a mystery to me. But the fact that there is still a problem here is a fact!
It's very simple.
The signal monitoring service has the vulnerability of calculating the percentage of profit. That's what's being exploited. The scheme is simple.
You open a deal(s) and wait for a good profit, e.g. 10-20-50%, depending on the leverage. The purpose is to release funds in the size of the initial deposit.
When there is enough free funds, the initial deposit is withdrawn without closing deals and a meager amount is introduced from which to count.
The trades are closed, all of them.
I never would have guessed that there were shughly-whughlys in the signal writers' broadcasts.
It would seem that everything is transparent. Deposit, balance, risks, period, profit.
Thanks to all of you for posting and enlightening me.
There is another basic feature of the MQL5-Signals service, which in general underlies all these manipulations - the fixed cost of subscription to the signal. In fact, it is a lie, because it turns out that manager's remuneration does not depend on actual financial results of subscribers.
The only fair and correct practice for managing other people's money is "% of monthly income from the beginning of the month, minus losses in previous periods (if any)". That is, the calculation should be made on the Subscriber's side based on his/her profit for the month, including the drawdown, if any, and not on the side of the signal seller.
By the way, this is the reason why MQL5 Signals service is not very popular among reasonable managers, as well as other platforms for selling signals (I am not naming them to avoid accusations of advertising) allowing managers to gain profit in % of income for the entire portfolio of subscribers.
The vicious circle: there is no fair system for calculating the manager profit => there are practically no successful managers in MQL5-service, there are either losers or scammers.
Without a change in the system for calculating manager commission, everything will remain the same, no matter what actions the admins take.
I wonder if PAMM accounts can also be manipulated in this way?
My comment here has been deleted apparently for the direct link to the PAMM account, so I am only giving you a screenshot.
Can someone explain me, how he got such a profitability 48523% and most importantly, how did the balance suddenly increased so much out of the blue?
So, to continue the long-standing argument.
Renat, the last time you demanded proof that your signal system incorrectly calculates increments.
Before this, the entire signal base was thoroughly scrubbed of examples, so logically I couldn't find anything.
So I made a proof. And in case you erased this signal, I made some pictures.
Those who want to admire it can find the signal on my profile. I can't subscribe because my account is not verified.
Arrangements have been made. Thank you for your consideration.
There is no error in the calculation, but some balance sheet manipulation combined with possible non-linear history can lead to such results.
Here's another example of balance sheet manipulation.
There's about 200 per cent of it.