Sensation! A profitable strategy for playing beagle has been found! - page 5
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
Hmmm, thanks for letting me know, I'll know now.
Why?
Hmmmmm... why?...what did you come to forex for? to flood the forum and lose your deposits? (even though my profits are paid out of those drained deposits.... then really... what for... :-)
C-4 писал(а) >>
So, the conditions of the problem:
The conditions of the problem were taken from Elita in his trader's task thread on the forum http://club.investo.ru/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=126082...
I didn't read the whole thread (I might have already had such a question), I will have a closer look in the evening, but this is what caught my eye. How is it that on the "price" chart
the minimum value of "price" is in the range 0.992-0.994 and on the candlestick chart
that range is 0.96 to 0.97? I thought the min(min()) and max(max()) candlesticks should at least coincide with the price extremes. or did you apply some special analysis?
Hmmm... what for?... what did you come to forex for? to flood the forum and lose your deposits? (even though my profits are being paid out of those drained deposits.... then really... what for... :-)
You should not behave like a hurt child.
Back to basics. You can't make a buck. It is an objective law. That same law says that even though you can't make money, you can sometimes win. It's a matter of chance. And no MM will help here.
I haven't read the whole thread (there may have been such a question before), I'll take a closer look in the evening, but here's what caught my eye. How is it that on the "price" chart
the minimum value of "price" is in the range 0.992-0.994 and on the candlestick chart
that range is 0.96 to 0.97? It seemed to me that min(min()) and max(max()) candlesticks should at least coincide with price extremes. or did you apply some special analysis?
Grasn, are you also on the lookout for a method to win at a constant wager?
Grasn, are you also on the lookout for a method of winning at a constant betting odds?
Philosophically, that's what we're all doing here :o))))
PS1: I just paid attention, and either I have not read it attentively or something else.
PS2
I'm also trying to understand what it says here (interestingly enough):
Perhaps one of the properties of stochastic processes - the incredible stability of the system on large volumes of values - is manifested here.
Philosophically, that's what we're all doing here :o))))
PS: Just paying attention, and here either I didn't read it carefully or something else.
In the philosophical sense maybe, but in the scientific sense it has already been proved that it does not exist, by mathematician Dub, they say in any textbook on probability theory, though I have not read it, it is somehow understandable.
>>You shouldn't act like a resentful child.
---
>>that's no way to be offended, fear God :-) - it was a sincere bewilderment....
--
>>Let's go back to basics. You can't make money by playing orgy. This is an objective law. That same law says that even though you can't make money, you can sometimes win. It's a matter of chance. And no MM is going to help.
--
>> that's because 95% of people think so, the forex losers will be around for many, many years :-) my experience and facts, show that you can win all the time (that is, more often than you lose....
but if you don't want to think about it... then so be it... stay at 95%....>>Вернемся к истокам. Зарабатывать в орлянку нельзя. Это объективный закон. Этот же самый закон гласит, что не смотря на то что зарабатывать нельзя, но иногда можно выигрывать. Дело случая. И никакой ММ тут не поможет.
You can only win with MM, with Martingale, you can't win with a constant bet.
In a philosophical one maybe, but in a scientific one it has already been proven that it does not exist, by mathematician Dub, they say in any probability theory textbook it is there, though I have not read it, it is somehow clear as it is.
I know that (we all know a lot here), but that does not contradict the desire to help a colleague find an error. By the way, I failed to repeat the experiment: here's the generator
Here are bars of 10 000 counts.
So, I don't really understand what "... one of properties of stochastic processes - unbelievable stability of system on big volumes of values".
You can only win with an MM, you can't win with a constant bet with Martingale.
By "winning" you mean increasing the initial deposit by a positive percentage. In case of Martingale this percentage is 0.
So there is no way to win at martingale.