Avalanche - page 184

 
Mathemat >>:

lexandros, стейты топикстартера... ты смеешься, ей-богу! До сих пор их, а также других доказательств, не было совсем - и не будет. Цель-то ветки не в этом совсем, а в том, чтобы подарить демосу чистую, высокую идею :) И заодно пропиариться, разумеется.

А стейты нескольких последователей уже были, ты же знаешь: если смотреть только на картинку - вполне себе неплохие, но если обратить внимание на просадки - уже не очень.


The stats were from the testers... I can lay out a lot of those stats... It's like I even put something down already:)
I mean the real-time stats - I haven't seen such stats here yet... And better yet - the password of investor, so that one can really monitor it:) If the result is really beautiful, maybe even investors would be found... I'd invest a couple hundred in a good TS myself... I think you wouldn't be stingy either:)
 
lexandros >>:


Я таких стейтов могу кучу навыкладывать

Hello, by the way. ))) Thanks to you I'm interested in my turkey again. And here is what I have achieved. The first EA learns from the indicator and generates matrix of trading signals for a given symbol and timeframe. The second Expert Advisor trades using these signals. Thus, USDCHF (М1 TF), study period March 2010. Trading from April 1, 2010 up to the present day. However, the lot is too big, so the drawdown is large. ))) However, see for yourself.


 
Is this real? Or a tester?
 
lexandros >>:
Это реал? или тестер?

The model is all ticks...

 
sorry... I can see... it's just a small picture. and my eyesight isn't young anymore:)
 
Mathemat писал(а) >>
What the supporters did, he automatically attributed to himself (although the systems created "based on motives" were different from his own). No problem: it is enough to refer to the supporters and say that it is still an avalanche, too.

Well, if the main point of the author's post is that "the lot should be 0.03 rather than 0.04" then yes "based on motives".
Actually the idea - almost trivial martin, but at opening new positions not "anyhow", but at breakdown of "any channel" :)
And here it may be interesting (interesting) to plot "effective TP" depending on the number of iterations and algorithm of forming the next lot and/or on changing the width of "any channel". This is "a flat channel of the system", when the price breaks through it, we may enter the Buy or make a profit. The construction and comparison of the "loss chart" for the netting version and the "margin chart" for the locking version (I am not interested in this in basic trading, so I will not argue with anyone yet).
And it is more interesting, as far as I am concerned, than substantiating "ideas about self-pulling by Munchausen's hair", calculating "elasticity of steel" (c) or considering "and there all his parallel crossed" (c) in one of the threads of this forum :)
 
goldtrader писал(а) >>


The conclusion IMHO is wrong. The brokerage companies are sending such racketeers to zombify novice traders.


You seem to be a devotee of the "Conspiracy Theory" (if you want - they taught it in the institute :):), and then, on the "box" for a long time - I can find a huge number of facts confirming this theory :)). ).
Nevertheless, with all my fertile imagination I can't imagine this picture in any way :(
Well, for example, a commercial for Danone - Danone pays.
Advertisements for the lowest prices for Danone in "Pyaterochka" - Pyaterochka pays.
And here?
So B pays John, and all the nerds go to A. Or John's on the payroll at Crawford, or else... the world government's paying John personally. :)
This is akin to the assertion of another author who wrote on this forum that all Brokers/Traders/DCs, Bernanke himself read this forum and any word written here can break Xforx.
'
That's the real laughing matter here, not that anyone is deluded and persistent in their delusions.

 
SergNF писал(а) >>


You must be a devotee of the "Conspiracy Theory" (if you wish - that's what they taught you at the institute :):), and then, on the "box", they taught you a long time - I can find a myriad of facts to support that theory :) ).
Nevertheless, with all my fertile imagination I can't imagine this picture in any way :(
Well, for example, advertising for Danone - Danone pays.
Advertisements for the lowest prices for Danone in "Pyaterochka" - Pyaterochka pays.
And here?
So B pays John, and all the nerds go to A. Or John's on the payroll at Crawford, or else... the world government pays John personally. :)
This is akin to the assertion of another author who wrote on this forum that all Brokers/Traders/DCs, Bernanke himself read this forum and any word written here can break Xforx.
'
This is all really funny, not that anyone is deluded and persistent in their delusions.


In this market (not financial, but the market of near forex services from DCs) there are common interests apart from competition. For example, to cheat clients if possible.
And there are a few sharks who control the bulk of this business.
And the CFTCG, which you mentioned, was just created by these sharks to protect their own interests. This is a pocket organization, which in no way can be regarded as an independent regulator. And it exists on the "commonwealth" of DC-monsters. The same fiefdom can also fund all the zombie-brainwashing technologies, one of which is being persistently pushed in this thread. Look at the issue from a slightly different angle and perhaps your position will change.

 

Paranoia. :) Who the hell needs you (all of you) here with your Russian language and your penny stocks? What sharks. :))

 
lexandros писал(а) >>


The stats were from the testers... I can lay out a lot of those stats... I don't even think I've put it out there yet:)
I mean the real account stats - I haven't seen them here yet... And better yet - the password of investor, so that one can really monitor it:) If the result is really beautiful, maybe even investors would be found... I'd invest a couple hundred in a good TS myself... I think you would do the same:)


There is a demo for now, testing is in progress. Martin with doubling, without indicators, with partial overlapping and topping up.

Reason: