Avalanche - page 58
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
By "classic" you mean "Avalanche" with doubling, but this is only a classic SLOWLY "Avalanche". In an "Avalanche" any initial lot multiplication factor is allowed - it is written in the first post of the thread
Besides, the chances of a quick exit (after 1-2 turns) from an "Avalanche" are much higher, if it requires to pass a much smaller distance (1/4 or 1/3).
Then we sequentially place 2 locking orders with the lots: 0.16L, 0.64L and it was enough to exit the market with profit. You can see in the picture that most market entries are closed with profit without triggering locking orders. This proves that the candle analysis, despite its simplicity, is profitable. Tested on minutes from 01.01.09 to 01.03.10
There is no guarantee of losing the deposit. Decent profit on the tested interval sometimes allows withdrawal of the initial deposit.
The profit more than compensates for the loss.
There is no guarantee against depo draining, so when using this Expert Advisor you need to withdraw your profit on a regular basis. A decent profit on the tested interval sometimes allows losing
The profit more than compensates for the loss.
Who are you talking about?
As far as I remember the above branch, you have not posted your corrected Expert Advisor.
Or have you mastered Photoshop?
Это Вы кому???
Насколько я помню ветку выше Вы так поправленный Вами эксперт и не выложили о каком использовании речь???
Или Вы освоили фотошоп?
Ask him in person, maybe he'll give it to you for a fee... . ))))))
In the picture you can see that most market entries are closed with profit without triggering locking orders. This shows that candlestick analysis, despite its simplicity, is paying off.
- why apply Martin in such a TS, if it already has a positive MA?
- If you want to show the results of a similar test with 0.1 lot without Martin...
Who are you talking about?
As far as I remember the thread above, you never posted what use you were talking about???
Or have you mastered Photoshop?
It's information for someone who is interested in the "avalanche" principle and who also tries to apply it effectively in his EAs.
And who told you that this picture belongs to that corrected EA. It is the result of corrected EA, which was made by me 2 years ago. I do not have Photoshop on my computer at all, as there is no need for it. I am not talking about the use of this particular EA, but about the use of "avalanche" in general.
This is information to someone who is interested in the avalanche principle, and who is also trying to apply it effectively to their experts.
And who told you that this picture belongs to that corrected EA. It is the result of corrected EA, which was made by me 2 years ago. I do not have Photoshop on my computer at all, as there is no need for it. I am not talking about a particular Expert Advisor, but about a general Expert Advisor, which uses the "avalanche" principle.
I was interested in the photoshop principle ... geez //sigh// wrong forum again
Conclusion:
Was written 2 years ago by an expert using the principle of avalanche
But the subject of avalanche was written (brought up) a month ago
Could it mean that Avalanche or EA has nothing to do with the picture in the Avalanche thread
like 2x2 ...
In that case a couple of questions:
- Why would you use Martin in such a TS if it already has a positive MO?
- >> Demonstrate the results of a similar test with 0.1 lot without Martin.
I didn't say that the system has positive equity without locking orders. What's more I'm sure of the opposite. Drawdowns are large, so stops should be large and they will wipe out all profits.
Locking allows you to work without any stops. In this case the stop will be a margin call. The main thing in this kind of Expert Advisor is to make it appear as rarely as possible.
I was interested in the photoshop principle ... geez //sigh// wrong forum again
Conclusion:
There was an expert written 2 years ago using the avalanche principle
But the subject of avalanche was written (brought up) a month ago
Could it mean that Avalanche or EA has nothing to do with the picture in the Avalanche thread
like 2x2 ...
The avalanche principle has been known for a long time, so there is nothing to be surprised about.
I did not write that without locking orders the system has positive MO. In fact, I am sure it does not.
Sorry (((.
I must have misinterpreted your sentence:
It proves that the candlestick analysis, despite its simplicity, pays off.
Why candlestick analysis and not random in that case?