Offering the game !!!!! - 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
This is all well and good, but 95% of forex trades are speculative, i.e. by and large traders trade against each other. Hence the reluctance to share strategies.
The way out can be found by creating a small closed team, in which case the synergistic effect can work.
The ethical aspect.
After all, a trader has no product like, say, a miner or a cook. a trader is a person who does not produce anything. and many people realise it and do not allow themselves to win. i have met enough of them... When I met them, I saw quite a few... so there will always be those who lose. And there are also commodity markets and stocks.... in general, there are many things that fluctuate. But one cannot simply earn and take money for long... You have to spend a significant percentage on something good.... for the good of the people... )))) the legendary Bill Williams, for example, spends 50% of his income... (he says)
So let us earn and spend wisely ... and all will be well !!!!!! What do you think ????
That's all well and good, but 95% of forex trades are speculative trades i.e. by and large traders trade against each other. Hence the reluctance to share strategies.
A way out can be found by creating a small closed team, in which case a synergistic effect can work.
The ethical aspect.
After all, a trader has no product like, say, a miner or a cook. a trader is a person who does not produce anything. and many people realise it and do not allow themselves to win. i have met enough of them... When I met them, I saw quite a few... so there will always be those who lose. And there are also commodity markets and stocks.... in general, there are many things that fluctuate. But one cannot simply earn and take money for a long time... You have to spend a significant percentage on something good.... for the good of the people... )))) the legendary Bill Williams, for example, spends 50% of his income... (he says)
So let us earn and spend wisely ... and all will be well !!!!!! What do you think ????
What a man!
Earn it first, you noble one.
By making money on the forex market we are essentially parasitising the global economy.
Speculators make money off each other! To steal from the world economy, you have to hold positions for months, capturing trends of 10-30 figures. The positions should be in the amount of trillions of dollars! But nobody holds such long positions willingly, at the best case the players can hold their small (concerning the volumes, necessary for the damage) loss-making positions for a long time, forcing to wait out the fall.
Earn it first, you noble one.
Who says I haven't earned it? :))
That's all well and good, but 95% of forex trades are speculative trades i.e. by and large traders trade against each other. Hence the reluctance to share strategies.
A way out can be found by creating a small closed team, in which case a synergistic effect can work.
The ethical aspect.
After all, a trader has no product like, say, a miner or a cook. a trader is a person who does not produce anything. and many people realise it and do not allow themselves to win. i have met enough of them... When I met them, I saw quite a few... so there will always be those who lose. And there are also commodity markets and stocks.... in general, there are many things that fluctuate. But one cannot simply earn and take money for a long time... You have to spend a significant percentage on something good.... for the good of the people... )))) the legendary Bill Williams, for example, spends 50% of his income... (he says)
So let us earn and spend wisely ... and all will be well !!!!!! What do you think ????
I've heard that the only person who spends more than 50% of his income on charity is George Soros, he even has his own fund, and what is worth the concept of open economy. Does Williams have a foundation?
FION wrote (a):
I agree with you. What is called PKS (I'll sign every word). But alas... What you describe below is not a formalized algorithm. I consider an algorithm to be a description of a process that can be performed by someone who is not familiar with the subject. For example, from your description, you need to know what channels are and how they are built. What does the price approach to the channel boundary mean? Different people give different meanings to it. For one person, the approach is an entrance into a 10-point zone, for another it is a crossing, for yet another it is something else. What do we finally come to? The programmer himself/herself formalizes the verbal description of the process. The result is an incorrect implementation of what the customer wanted. The reason for that is communication in different languages and putting different meanings into the same words. How to avoid this? Both the customer and the programmer must be involved in the formalization process, algorithmization. Better yet both of them develop their own algorithms, compare them, find inconsistencies, and eliminate them. In all my 15 years of programming experience I have only had one customer, who tried to talk to me in a language I understood. The ToR had everything I needed: all the conditions, all the formulas, default values and so on were taken into account. There was virtually nothing for me to formalise. Everything had already been done. Apparently this is the ideal, but the reality is that you have to pull most of the details out of the customer, i.e. a typical customer doesn't care about what the programmer might need to implement his idea. What figures, what graphs, tables, formulas or just explanatory illustrations.A programmer needs a formalised algorithm of the EA trading process to write code.
FION wrote (a):
Yes, I agree with you... A hungry person will never go to a museum or a theatre. At first, it's as good as it gets.In principle, the code can be awkward, glued together from different scripts and pieces of previously published EAs, as long as it works properly.
FION wrote (a):
How does he do it? By crossing certain levels or by being in certain zones?c)one oscillator(snipers ergodic CCI)-which shows the start of a pullback and the end of a pullback.
FION wrote (a):
How do you distinguish a mini trend from a global one? And why is it needed?You look at the channel (general trend -mini or global).
FION wrote (a):
What levels are important (reversal)? How to determine and calculate them? Can you give us a specific formula? You mentioned Murray levels and pivots. Are they the pivot levels?Wait for the price to approach an important level (reversal level).
FION wrote (a):
We need a clear criterion, what does "reached" mean? Touching, crossing, entering the area near the border...Price has reached the upper limit of the channel.
FION wrote (a):
We need a criterion of income to the top. Being in the area, crossing the level...The oscillator has reached the very top (shows overbought) - signalling a pullback.
FION wrote (a):
OK. Thank you for the idea.Codify it and it will work.
Are you answering that it will work? Does it work for you? Because it's one thing to have one implementation of an idea, and another thing to assume that it will work. They are, as they say, two big differences.
That's all well and good, but 95% of forex trades are speculative trades i.e. by and large traders trade against each other. Hence the reluctance to share strategies.
A way out can be found by creating a small closed team, in which case a synergistic effect can work.
How do you know about 95% of the speculative deals? Where does the world economy get its money from?
You can create as many teams of programmers as you like to get another bifurcation.
I am not the final truth, all statements are my humble opinion.
95% speculative deals (I saw it somewhere I don't remember where, but I believe it). Speculative transactions do not involve the actual supply of currency, all closed by clearing settlements (netting) and only 5% remains for real currency supply, well, there for the purchase of materials, equipment, goods, opening branches (meaning overseas). You are saying yourself: "Where will the world economy get so much money from?
And about the team, I think it will work. Have you tried it, do you have a negative experience? Share them, so as not to repeat mistakes.
In general, you have to be more optimistic about life. Optimists achieve more in life - that's a fact I've established (but I'm not the first to have established this fact).
Still about the team. I don't believe that the team must be composed of only programmers. I think everyone present on this forum has something worthy of attention. And here other members of the team will see it and offer improvements and a synergetic effect will result. Imagine a set of initially good experts or strategies finalized by the team.
I didn't write that, FION did.
FION wrote (a):
I agree with you. What's called PKS (I'll sign every word). But alas... What you describe below is not a formalized algorithm. I consider an algorithm to be a description of a process that can be performed by someone who is not familiar with the subject. For example, from your description, you need to know what channels are and how they are built. What does the price approach to the channel boundary mean? Different people give different meanings to it. For one person, the approach is an entrance into a 10-point zone, for another it is a crossing, for yet another it is something else. What do we finally come to? The programmer himself/herself formalizes the verbal description of the process. The result is an incorrect implementation of what the customer wanted. The reason for that is communication in different languages and putting different meanings into the same words. How to avoid this? Both the customer and the programmer must be involved in the formalization process, algorithmization. Better yet both of them develop their own algorithms, compare them, find inconsistencies, and eliminate them. In all my 15 years of programming experience I have only had one customer, who tried to talk to me in a language I understood. The ToR had everything I needed: all the conditions, all the formulas, default values and so on were taken into account. There was virtually nothing for me to formalise. Everything had already been done. Apparently this is the ideal, but the reality is that you have to pull most of the details out of the customer, i.e. a typical customer doesn't care about what the programmer might need to implement his idea. What figures, what graphs, tables, formulas or just explanatory illustrations.A programmer needs a formalised algorithm of the EA trading process to write code.
FION wrote (a):
Yes, I agree with you... A hungry person will never go to a museum or a theatre. At first, it's as good as it gets.In principle, the code can be awkward, glued together from different scripts and pieces of previously published EAs, as long as it works properly.
FION wrote (a):
How does he do it? By crossing certain levels or by being in certain zones?c)one oscillator(snipers ergodic CCI)-which shows the start of a pullback and the end of a pullback.
FION wrote (a):
How do you distinguish a mini trend from a global one? And why is it needed?You look at the channel (general trend -mini or global).
FION wrote (a):
What levels are important (reversal)? How to determine and calculate them? Can you give us a specific formula? You mentioned Murray levels and pivots. Are they the pivot levels?Wait for the price to approach an important level (reversal level).
FION wrote (a):
We need a clear criterion, what does "reached" mean? Touching, crossing, entering the area near the border...Price has reached the upper limit of the channel.
FION wrote (a):
We need a criterion of income to the top. Being in the area, crossing the level...The oscillator has reached the very top (shows overbought) - signalling a pullback.
FION wrote (a):
OK. Thank you for the idea.Codify it and it will work.
Are you answering that it will work? Does it work for you? Because it's one thing to have one implementation of an idea, and another thing to assume that it will work. They are, as they say, two big differences.