Does the Grail exist? - page 6

 
Dear Sir, don't clog people's brains.
 
SProgrammer >>:

D1 - ну-ну :)) Да даже в примерах МТ есть грааль ...

M1, все тики, постоянным лотом. Все остальное чепуха. Возмите MN это еще круче будет. :))


There's a new clown in the army.
 
C-4 писал(а) >>

There's a new clown in the ranks.


OK, amateur clowns, I'm waiting for your runs on M1, all ticks, constant lot. If you do not understand that this is the only thing that most closely emulates reality, then unfortunately it means that nothing can help you.

 
Before discussing the possibility of the existence of the grail, we must define the concept of the grail... the concept is different for everyone...
 
C-4 >>:


в полку клоунов прибыло.


Couldn't stand it and I'll tell you one thing ( you're younger than me ). The lower the timeframe, the more skill is required. You're the clown if you don't know that there's more noise on smaller timeframes. You're saying 100% a year is already AWESOME. Have you fallen from the moon? 100% a year is ridiculous, you've probably never been anywhere else. Well, "live" in a decent American broker and you'll understand what it means to trade. P.S. If you want to trade with TERRENCY, you have to do it and you have to try.
P.S If you want, I will personally prove to YOU in front of everybody that I will raise the deposit of 1000% a month. Ready to bet? If you lose, we will put a stamp in your passport "Clown". Are you ready?
 
C-4 >>:
Да, это D1, а Вы разве не знали что все другие тайфреймы кроме d1 это тайфремы для клоунов?
Еще раз исключительно для клоунов показываю результаты работы системы, подчеркиваю не грааля, с постоянным лотом 0.1:




Показываю исключительно для того что бы заткнуть возрастающую вонь: что вот мол на этот форуме сидят одни придурки, только и умеющие что циклы for() кодить, и ничего не понимающие в рынках. А вот настоящие трейдеры, они может быть и не знают программирования, но умеют 800% за 8 рабочих дней делать.

We used to be like that then we learned =)

your cycle is not clear 8 days for what reason?

but 600 for 5 is kind of a thing.

 
FantasYGold писал(а) >>

Couldn't stand it and I'll tell you one thing ( you're younger than me ). The lower the timeframe the more skill is required. You're the clown if you don't know there's more noise on smaller timeframes. You're saying 100% a year is already AWESOME. Have you fallen from the moon? 100% a year is ridiculous, you've probably never been anywhere else. Well, "live" in a decent American broker and you'll understand what it means to trade. P.S. If you want to trade with TERRENCY, you have to do it and you have to try.
P.S If you want, I will personally prove to YOU in front of everybody that I will raise the deposit of 1000% a month. Ready to bet? If you lose, we will put a stamp in your passport "Clown". Ready?

You've got a man on a bet.
But everyone who is looking for a way to "unravel the system of trading" I explain - it can not unravel (not this one but in general), unravel the system of the Expert Advisor "Supper Smart 1" ( SS1 ) ... :))

***
I've already stopped arguing like this - kafu isn't enough - if they actually ate their hats and stamped their passports. Then there would be some good. But as it is - they will not even write here with eyes full of tears and sniffing their noses - "whimper, whimper.... why doesn't my M1 work? .... .... "
 
BLEEP BLEEP
WHY WHY?
yyyy
 
sol писал(а) >>
Boo hoo hoo.
>> WHY?
>>


:)) +5 .
 
FantasYGold, show us your master class, it's really interesting.
There's nothing wrong with scepticism, as people just don't believe it's possible to trade long and steadily. Many worthy ones have come here through such denial of others, but have caught on and proved their right to a place here. Getting offended and walking away is the wrong tactic.
To be honest, I myself am skeptical of such figures (950% in 8 days, and even without stops), but why not look: life is much richer than our ideas about it, and in it exceptions are not uncommon.
The evaluation will be tough - you have probably already guessed that. You have already guessed it. Just go on.
And where is your Alpari thread where you demonstrate the same thing?
Reason: