Safe, profitable and exciting forex - page 2
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
Here's the question - how will you analyse which parameters are successful? With so many deaths? I think you need to collect the results somehow, put them in the database and then process them somehow.
The key word here is "somehow" because I personally do not understand the mechanism.
I assume you, as the author of the idea, have thought this question through, please share.
1. To implement this project it is sufficient to have TS, capable of operating with minimal absolute drawdown at some point of history (even at 10-20%). Most trend-following EAs are capable of this, for example, this EA, launched in early 2010, shows such results with TP=SL=300pp, which is enough:
During January 2010, out of 20 EAs launched with a total budget of $20, the first 17 survived and then started to die. The surviving EAs so far have each earned a constant 0.01 lot, an average of $112, for a total of $1,900. I'm sure in 2010 a few more EAs will survive (this can be checked, there is no time now). In addition, the maximum drawdown was $28. Consequently, every time at least 50$, you can increase lot volume, which increases the final profit. A primitive calculation shows that, in less than 6 years, we increase the spent money more than 10 times. But, when I make all calculations, I'm sure it will be more than 100 times. I think that is enough for any trader with a good appetite. For clarity, I will perform the entire experiment in 2010. Let's see what happens. In any case, the trader will not lose. Then we need to check with the deposit of $2, $3, ..., $10, $20 and choose the best option for the initial deposit of the kamikaze robot.
1.To implement this project it is sufficient to have an Expert Advisor, capable of working with minimal absolute drawdown in some parts of the history (even at 10-20%). For example, this is what most trend-following EAs are capable of, for example, this EA, launched at the beginning of 2010, shows such results with TP=SL=300pp, which is enough:
During January 2010, out of 20 EAs launched with a total budget of $20, the first 17 survived and then started to die. The surviving EAs so far have each earned a constant 0.01 lot, an average of $112, for a total of $1,900. I'm sure in 2010 a few more EAs will survive (this can be checked, there is no time now). In addition, the maximum drawdown was $28. Consequently, every time at least 50$, you can increase lot volume, which increases the final profit. A primitive calculation shows that, in less than 6 years, we increase the spent money more than 10 times. But, when I make all calculations, I'm sure it will be more than 100 times. I think that is enough for any trader with a good appetite. For clarity, I will perform the entire experiment in 2010. Let's see what happens. In any case, the trader will not lose. Then we need to check with the deposit of $2, $3, ..., $10, $20 and choose the best option for the initial deposit of the kamikaze robot.
I don't understand how kamikaze is different from one another? Is it the same strategy with different parameters?
Different EAs earning under certain market conditions.
Judging by that phrase, it's the same one. Or a typo.
"1. To implement this project, it is sufficient to have a TS capable of working with minimal absolute drawdown in some parts of the history (even if by 10-20%).
or capable?
I don't understand how kamikaze is different from one another? Is it the same strategy with different parameters?
Judging by that phrase, it's the same one. Or a typo.
"1. To implement this project, it is sufficient to have a TS capable of working with minimal absolute drawdown in some parts of the history (even if by 10-20%).
or capable?
1.To implement this project it is sufficient to have an Expert Advisor, capable of working with minimal absolute drawdown in some parts of the history (even at 10-20%). For example, this is what most trend-following EAs are capable of, for example, this EA, launched at the beginning of 2010, shows such results with TP=SL=300pp, which is enough:
During January 2010, out of 20 Expert Advisors launched with a total budget of $20, the first 17 survived, then began to die. The surviving EAs so far have each earned a constant 0.01 lot, an average of $112, for a total of $1,900. I'm sure in 2010 a few more EAs will survive (this can be checked, there is no time now). In addition, the maximum drawdown was $28. Consequently, every time at least 50$, you can increase lot volume, which increases the final profit. A primitive calculation shows that, in less than 6 years, we increase the spent money more than 10 times. But, when I make all calculations, I'm sure it will be more than 100 times. I think that is enough for any trader with a good appetite. For clarity, I will perform the entire experiment in 2010. Let's see what happens. In any case, the trader will not lose. Then we need to check with the deposit of $2, $3, ..., $10, $20 and choose the best option for the initial deposit of the kamikaze robot.
☼
Dear Yusuf, I ask you not to do your experiments for 2016, otherwise we will be left without business. :)
You say you work as an economist but you reason like a schoolboy. There is no need to violate what is called Money Management.
In order to trade profitably and without losses you need to have about $10K on the deposit and open orders with 0.01 lot maximum.
Only in this case it is possible to gain 5-10% monthly. More than that is risky.
To sacrifice yourself for money is not worth it (I mean your kamikaze).
History shows that blowing yourself and others up for the sake of some idea leads to nothing good.