Anti-Martingale vs Martingale : Good prevails!!! - page 14

New comment
 
paukas:
Limiting the maximum lot is not a martingale, it is the opposite. That is, you are reducing the lot on a drawdown. What kind of martingale is this?
If you don't like it, don't eat it.
 
Cmu4:
If you don't like it, don't eat it.
You shouldn't do that, Denis. He didn't say he didn't like it. He's just clarifying a terminological disagreement.
 
MetaDriver:

You know, like "one-step". Why not call it that. I wouldn't mind. At least there's some variety in the mind. :)

I hope for the sake of a correct comparison it also has a one-step anti-martin.

Because when one reduces a lot after a loss, it is not martingale at all.

That's why the graph doesn't look like the M. at all.

 
paukas:

Because when you reduce the lot after a loss, it's not Martingale at all.

That's why the graph doesn't look like M. at all.

Terminological deadlock. It's like a religious conflict, but there's a slightly better chance of survival.

Paukas, I like you. Let's get to know each other... :)) Here's a question : are you capable of allowing "multiple terminology" in a forum?

Because I would be sorry to find myself on opposite sides of a religious... ugh... intellectual (shall we say) fence.

 

I am totally against verbiage and demagogy. That is why I do not engage in high-flown arguments. If you are interested in the substance of the trade, ask, and offer!

But just don't fucking "define the term". Sometimes you get the impression that everything is clear, but, no, some people need to get to the bottom of the definition and point out the flaw in the name.

 
Cmu4:

I am totally against verbiage and demagogy. That is why I do not engage in pompous arguments. If you are interested in something of substance, ask, and suggest it!

But just don't fucking "define the term". Sometimes I get the impression that everything is clear, but, no, some people need to get to the bottom of the definition and point out the flaw in the title.

Why so categorical? If the definition is more convenient than "overlapping", e.g. more flexible and universal, why not suggest it?

But you're right about one thing: the term is not the point. A map is not a territory.

 
Cmu4:

I am totally against verbiage and demagogy. That is why I do not engage in high-flown arguments. If you are interested in the substance of the trade, ask, and offer!

But just don't fucking "define the term". Sometimes you get the impression that everything is clear, but, no, some people need to get to the bottom of the definition and point out the flaw in the name.

What has this got to do with a flaw? You decrease the lot after a loss, and very sharply, and call it a martingale. You can't do that.

 
Cmu4:

I am totally against verbiage and demagogy. That is why I do not engage in high-flown arguments. If you are interested in the essence of trading - ask,


Question -

If you think that the manipulation with the lot size, based only on the result of a previous close can lead to positive mo?

 
Mischek:


Question -

Do you think that manipulating the lot size based only on the result of the previous close can lead to positive mo ?

It may. They may or may not.
 
Mischek:


Question -

Do you think that manipulating the lot size based only on the result of the previous close can lead to positive mo ?

Huh. It depends on what you're expecting. (c) If in pips, no. But if it's in money, it's fine.
1...789101112131415161718192021...33
New comment