"Trees don't grow to the sky" - page 45
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
Well, according to your picture, that's exactly what happened)))
You poured in a local drawdown in the hope that it would be global. And it turned out to be local. And you got out on a global drawdown. )))
I went out on a PAMM plummet in my understanding and loss of flair by the manager, who stopped catching mice... If he had not changed the trading system, ie if the character of the graph of PAMM profitability would have remained the same (I do not even need any posts on his forum - everything can be seen by the nature of DEP load and the yield curve), then I would have filled it now! :-)
They may naturally be available to someone else. But they are not published, have not been read and are not accepted as dogma or as a scientific work on which to build. So c'est la vie ))))
I myself am a fan of Larry Williams and all his books. But the search of seriality is too nontrivial task to be solved by the Z-Score. The introduction of an additional submodel into the trading/investing model is fraught with danger, because it always introduces an additional degree of freedom for risk along with it. The simplest example:
Great seriality isn't it? But what if it is just part of a random process:
But that's not what the topic is about.This theory only works if the system is stable. The only question is, will it also be stable in the future?
Attitudes can vary, it's good if the investor or trader can find the factors and analyse the system, but in
most of the time you have to trust the system stupidly and coldly.
Already after the 4th y came x. Invest after the 4th unprofitable trade :), or better after the 5th, seldom but aptly :)
Well, in that case, I'm either a genius or a madman, because I have such research... No, more like a madman.
Waiting for your new article :) all the more you have established yourself :)
That's what I wrote - investing in an obscure manager based on equity alone carries, as it turns out, big non-trading risks.....))))
There, there. If every manager was subjected to anal inspection before trading on PAMM's and the results were published on the official site, the level of risk would decrease dramatically, because every investor would be able to see not only the outer gloss of the manager but also all his inner essence, so to speak.
I lost on losing PAMM as I understood it and my manager stopped catching mice. If he hadn't changed the trading system, ie if the character of PAMM chart movement would have remained the same (I don't even need any posts on his forum - everything can be seen by the nature of DEP load and the yield curve), then I would have deposited! :-)
A lot of assumptions - "if".
In fact - you invested at the maximum - over 3000% - How is that? The minimum?
And you came out below 3000% - at a loss, you write it yourself. So what? - Entry at the high, exit at the nearest low. This is not a trader's approach ))))
I had to invest up to 1000% and exit with the same 3000%. Which I did, because I figured it was impossible to go higher ))))
This theory only works if the system is stable. The only question is, will it also be stable in the future?
Attitudes can vary, it is good if the investor or trader can find the factors and analyse the system, but in
Most of the time, you have to trust the system stupidly and coldly.
Already after the 4th y came x. Invest after the 4th unprofitable trade :), or better after the 5th, seldom but aptly :)
The point is that finding the right characteristics in a more or less stationary series of equity managers is a necessary but not a sufficient condition. If the manager unexpectedly changes the trading system, risk management or the portfolio of traded instruments, all the early figures calculated by us will no longer have any relation to the current equity formation.
A lot of assumptions - "if".
In fact - you invested at the maximum - over 3000% - How is that? Minimum?
And you came out below 3000% - at a loss, you write it yourself. So what? - Entry at the high, exit at the nearest low. This is not a trader's approach ))))
I had to invest up to 1000% and exit with the same 3000%. Which I did, because I figured it was impossible to go higher ))))
Or maybe your hand was shaking? :)
That's a good approach, but not a real one ))))
Therefore, for an investor, the expression of the famous man who has become a proverb - "trees don't grow to the sky" - makes more sense than it may seem.
A living example is m_a_sim. How can one invest at 3000%? He thought it would be 6000%?, then he would get his 50% with the money split. But from 3000% to 6000% is as difficult as from a -50% drawdown to 0 - we all know it )))).
So - we need to invest, I think, at minimum levels - up to 500 or even 200%. After that - who knows what will happen ))))
Lots of assumptions - "if".
In fact - you invested at the maximum - over 3000% - How is that? The minimum?
And you came out below 3000% - at a loss, you write it yourself. So what? - Entry at the high, exit at the nearest low. This is not a trader's approach ))))
I had to invest up to 1000% and exit with the same 3000%. Which I did, because I figured it was impossible to go higher ))))
As a matter of fact, yes. I agree, we should have gone earlier...
I couldn't invest up to 1000%, because I was not friends with Alpari... :-)
Congratulations!!! Good decision... :-)
Now - new heroes:-), and English speaking ones... Just as greedy on the offer, but they are flying into space... I am already on board!!! :-)