Forex strategies
It's not just strategy that makes them lose. Psychology is also an important factor. It's also important to follow the rules of MM.
Read this.
http://xerurg.ru/any10.php
Read this.
http://xerurg.ru/any10.php
Sart:
If 90% of traders, using the most sophisticated strategy, lose, then what's the point ???
It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction from the signals of any strategy?
Regards - Sergey Sartakov
If 90% of traders, using the most sophisticated strategy, lose, then what's the point ???
It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction from the signals of any strategy?
Regards - Sergey Sartakov
This is the way of the world - the strongest survive (win). Also 90% of new businessmen go bankrupt, 90% or more of beginning professional sportsmen fail...
The market (and brokerage companies) have statistical advantage over the trader - the trader pays spread immediately at entry, the sum of positive and negative swaps for any pair is negative for the trader, and such things as slippage, requotes, price shifts and non-market quotes do not increase the trader's advantage. Also, there are commissions. It is more evident on real account. According to the game theory, trading on financial markets is a game with nonzero (negative sum), i.e. the sum of gains of a group of traders and other market participants is not equal to the sum of the opposing side's gains. Unlike poker or pref with friends at the table. So, unfortunately, "trading to the opposite side" will not save.
Sart:
It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
When I realised that - I tried it, it's even worse! It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
At the end of the 90s (I think Zhvakolyuk, but I may be wrong) I also understood this and suggested the "poplovka" method. They should open in both directions (preferably on the edges of the channel with a positive eViti), and do not worry where the market will go. If you use it skillfully, it may be useful, but not more!
Sart:
It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
No, it isn't. For that, the initial strategy has to be highly profitable. But it's just as hard to come up with one as it is to come up with a profitable one. And it's not even about the commissions charged by DCs, it's about the strategy itself.
It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
Mathemat:
That's a very interesting idea - "it is as difficult to have a bad losing strategy as a profitable one" (I've never thought about it, and actually I doubt it). So maybe aim to develop not a profitable, but a plum strategy - and work on this plum strategy. Sart:
It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
No, it isn't. For that the initial strategy has to be highly profitable. And it's not even about brokerage commissions, it's about the strategy itself.It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
If I work by a profitable strategy and lose the deposit, then the work by a losing strategy should bring profit.
I did not understand the point at all - what is the point ????.
Regards - S.S.
Sart:
If I work by a profitable strategy and lose the deposit, then the work by a losing strategy should bring profit.
I can't get the point - what is the point ????
You were told it's about the negative mathematical expectation. In the casino at the roulette wheel though by strategy though against it will only give losses. For example, one player bets on his strategy on red, the other against it on black. Zero - both lost bets and chips raked dealer.Mathemat:
That's a very interesting idea - "it is as difficult to have a bad losing strategy as a profitable one" (I've never thought about it, and actually I doubt it). So maybe aim to develop not a profitable, but a plum strategy - and work on this plum strategy. Sart:
It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
No, it's not. For that the initial strategy has to be highly plummeting. But it's just as hard to come up with such a strategy as a profitable one. And it's not even about the commissions charged by DCs, but about the strategy itself.It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
If I work by a profitable strategy and lose the deposit, then the work by a losing strategy should bring profit.
I can't get the point - what is the point ????
In trading, the value of negative expectation is even worse than in the casino at the roulette table.
How do you work on a profitable strategy and then lose your deposit? How do you determine if a strategy is profitable? Personally, I use a graph of the relationship between the deposit and the trade number. And the goal is, it seems to me, just to make a strategy with a more or less monotonic curve. And where it is directed is not important...
usdjpy:
In trading, the value of negative expectation is even worse than in the casino at the roulette table.
Negative mathematical expectation is very conditional in its negativity. It can be negative in a month or on a day and become very positive. S.S. respectfully.
Sart:
If I work by a profitable strategy and lose the deposit, then the work by a losing strategy should bring profit.
I can't get the point - what is the point ????
You were told it's about the negative mathematical expectation. In the casino at the roulette wheel though by strategy though against it will only give losses. For example, one player bets on his strategy on red, the other against it on black. Zero - both lost bets and chips raked dealer.Mathemat:
It's a very interesting idea - "it's as difficult to build a bad losing strategy as a profitable one" (I've never thought about it, and actually I doubt it). So maybe aim to develop not a profitable, but a plum strategy - and work on this plum strategy. Sart:
It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
No, it's not. For that the initial strategy has to be highly plummeting. But it's just as hard to come up with such a strategy as a profitable one. And it's not even about the commissions charged by DCs, but about the strategy itself.It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
If I work by a profitable strategy and lose the deposit, then the work by a losing strategy should bring profit.
I can't get the point - what is the point ????
In trading, the value of negative expectation is even worse than in the casino at the roulette table.
Sart:
Well, dispersion is dispersion in Africa. According to the law of large numbers, it tends to zero only on a very large sample. And on a small one, anything can happen. Even a losing strategy can give huge profits while a profitable one will fail. Moreover, expectation is considered not by its frequency but by its probability. And in statements and backtests, we can get only by its frequency.
usdjpy:
In trading, the value of negative expectation is even worse than in the casino at the roulette table.
Negative mathematical expectation is very conditional in its negativity. It can be negative in a month or on a day and become very positive. S.S. respectfully.Sart:
If I work by a profitable strategy and lose the deposit, then the work by a losing strategy should bring profit.
I can't get the point - what is the point ????
You're told it's about negative mathematical expectation. In a casino, roulette, whether you use a strategy or against it, will only result in a loss. For example, one player by his strategy bets on red, the other against him on black. Zero - both lost bets and chips raked dealer.Mathemat:
It's a very interesting idea - "it's as difficult to build a bad losing strategy as a profitable one" (I've never thought about it, and actually I doubt it). So maybe aim to develop not a profitable, but a plum strategy - and work on this plum strategy. Sart:
It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
No, it's not. For that the initial strategy has to be highly plummeting. But it's just as hard to come up with such a strategy as a profitable one. And it's not even about the commissions charged by DCs, but about the strategy itself.It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction to the signals of any strategy ???
If I work by a profitable strategy and lose the deposit, then the work by a losing strategy should bring profit.
I can't get the point - what is the point ????
In trading, the value of negative expectation is even worse than in the casino at the roulette table.
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
Forex strategies.
If 90% of traders using the most sophisticated strategies lose, then what is the point? It turns out that the best strategy is to trade in the opposite direction from the signals of any strategy? Regards - Sergey Sartakov.
It was noticed here that it is as difficult to build a bad strategy as a very profitable one. That is a very good idea. If it is true, i.e. Forex is symmetric in this regard, then we should aim to develop strongly losing strategies and bravely work with them. If we lose deposits by strongly profitable strategies, then, provided the statement about Forex symmetry is true, playing by losing strategies must bring profit.
Although, most likely, any profitable and losing strategy is one and the same. Both can bring profit and loss in equal measure. The main question that I think nobody raised is whether Forex is symmetrical?