A balance between QUALITY and QUANTITY - page 12
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
That's what I thought too. What about his website?
It is hard for me to judge Gerchik's system, but I will say that from what I saw on the video recording of his seminar (demo version) I was not impressed. What stuck in my mind was his absolutely banal recommendations, like sell the stocks that have risen the least in the last few strong bull days for the stock market. Or his flip hammer:
You should buy at a price slightly higher than the high of the bar. I've heard something similar somewhere;).
All in all his methods reek very strongly of stink. I don't think he himself trades according to them. Then again, money likes quiet, if he was really in the 2% of the establishment I don't think he would boast about it so openly.
As for Gurov. Where have you seen Gurov's actual frozen account? All I've seen in Gurov is a $5 000 demo account with drawdown greater than 30% and the words "The market will judge us" (I understand that it was safely dumped a long time ago, so it's better to forget about it). Yes, Gurov opened a real PAMM account for $100 000 once but he closed it immediately and we do not know the reasons. So my words that Gurov is above all a guru and not a trader have some basis in fact.
Note, I do not trash Gurov or Gerchik, I'm not trying to belittle their undoubtedly high status of maestros. Just call things by their proper names; there are traders and there are gurus to whom traders listen.
it's a very good book, i recommend reading it (there are links above). i read it a long time ago, but i hadn't noticed that it had a criterion. I've read it for a long time, but I didn't pay attention to it (i didn't remember it).
the criteria are very similar. And in my opinion, it's the best you can come up with.
But the text is from it.
But the text from it has been cited.
it was after your message that there was an efficiency criterion. It surprised me, as I didn't remember it. I opened it and started looking for it, found it and posted it to make it easier for others. My criterion is slightly different, the drawdown is at the heart of it, but in essence they are very close.
Z.U. I have never considered my opinions as the final authority, that is why I was so interested in the opinion of the mathematician, he did not find there any redemption. And if Alexey is for and Bulyshev too, then this criterion should be taken very carefully.