Once again, about the lokas. - page 16

New comment
 
SProgrammer >>:


Вы просили правило которое 100% выполняется - утверждая что ничего на форесе доказать нельзя. И поэтому вы ничего доказывать не будите - я привел вам пример правила. А это ДОКАЗЫВАЕТ что ваше утверждение ложно. Теперь вы докажите ваше утверждение что есть аглоритм. Не можете? Ну я и не сомневался. :)

I wrote...

...
The assertion of your unsubstantiation is absolutely obvious.
I took the liberty of illustrating the assertion of one of the panelists.
You, on the other hand, in your usual bland (if not to say boorish) manner, continue to rant.
Prove at least one forex rule that always works. ;)
I made a caveat. And it is correct. When the market is flat, locks with a martin are a miracle. :)

We were talking about the same rule. You can try to prove it from the opposite... ;)
To your far-fetched example the following suggestion.
If you like the tester - try putting a normal size lock instead of TP, and double the position where SL is.
What will the integral tell us? ;)
 
avatara писал(а) >>

>> I wrote.

We were talking about the same rule. You can try to prove it from the opposite... ;)
To your drawn out example the following suggestion.
If you like the tester - try putting a normal size lock instead of TP, and double the position where SL is.
What will the integral tell us? ;)


K-a-k-a-l-i n-e-p-r-o-h-o-d-i-m-a-i s-e-r-o-s-t!!!!

What are you going to do not forex, it's all maths. :)

 
SProgrammer >>:


К-а-к-а-я н-е-п-р-о-х-о-д-и-м-а-я с-е-р-о-с-ть!!!!

Что вы собираетесь делать не форексе, тут сплошная математика. :)


Is that all?
 
avatara писал(а) >>


Is that it?


That's all what? You can't prove that the lock works even with your limitations - I've shown it to everyone - that's enough for me. I'm satisfied. :)

 
SProgrammer >>:


Что всё? Вы доказать что лок работает даже с вашими ограничениями не можете - я всем это показал - мне достаточно. Я удовлетворен. :)

You have been charged with proving it. You argued that the lock is self-defeating - you're the one to jump on.
And the example on M30 on Pfizer is still more instructive than your antics.

 
avatara писал(а) >>

You have been charged with proving it. You argued that lock is self-defeating - you're the one to jump on.
And the example on M30 on Pfizer is still more instructive than your antics.

You don't understand the concept of "science" at all. :) Maybe that's the reason.

That is, if there is a man who says - that (-1) + (+1) = 32, and I say in response that this is nonsense, and requires proof - I'm like I'll have to prove that I'm right. That's funny. :))
 
SProgrammer >>:

Не вы походу вообще непонимаете такое понятие как "научность". :) Может в этом причина?

То есть если найдется человек который скажет - что (-1) + (+1) = 32, а я в ответ скажу что это чушь, и требует доказательства - я типа должен буду доказать что я прав. Приколько. :))

Scientificity? Or scientificity?

 
Do you think you are not in the market? This is self-deception! You are always in the market. Even if you don't know it. You are in the most excellent market!
)))
Luckily MT5 will cover this topic. I'm getting pretty fed up with the topic of lockomania. Especially amusing when reputable and respected forum members begin to speak in its defense.
 
SProgrammer >>:

Не вы походу вообще непонимаете такое понятие как "научность". :) Может в этом причина?

То есть если найдется человек который скажет - что (-1) + (+1) = 32, а я в ответ скажу что это чушь, и требует доказательства - я типа должен буду доказать что я прав. Приколько. :))

:)

"The right locker" will start explaining that it will wait until it goes up 16 and closes (+1) and then it will wait "down 16" and close (-1).

Well, you get the idea that it's all round. Loker is right a priori, he's ALWAYS_in_the_chocolate!

 
gip >>:
А у ежа пример-аналогия вообще никакой, это очевидно.

Gip, the hedgehog has just the right example of 'what'.

1...91011121314151617181920212223...61
New comment