Is there a need for a T.A.? - page 26
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
I don't really understand how closed ones are counted there. The accounts seem to be updated every 4 hours, there should be no difference - forced or not, but the minuses in pips are obviously not all deducted. Or not always. Maybe not to shock investors :)
Sometimes they don't update for days, sometimes every 4 hours :)
Yeah, it's taken up to a hundred for a demonstration run-up.
I thought I explained. The scale on the ordinate axis is in dollars. So the initial doubling in dollars is much smaller than for larger amounts.
)))))thanks for explaining the scale! You did from 1000 to 1200 in 1 year and 8 months (approximately), +20%. Then from 08.2009 to 01.2010 from about 100 to 300, +200%. Then active trading from 01 to 06 months. What year? What aggressive trading?
sometimes they don't update for days, sometimes really every four hours :)
What's your drop? Withdrawal or loss?
)))))thank you for explaining the scale! You went from 1000 to 1200 in 1 year and 8 months (approximately), +20%. Then from 08.2009 to 01.2010 from around 100 to 300, +200%. Then active trading from 01 to 06 months. What year? What kind of aggressive trading?
Is +200% low or not aggressive? :) It's a matter of statistics and the size of the risks. If you made a deposit and increased your deposit 10 times for one deal it is one thing. In this case the MM was quite normal and the deposit increase was due to a large number of trades. I don't understand.
I just do not understand, what do you want? You have written yourself:
It's a great monitor! If only it had been for at least half a year - it wouldn't be worth it IMHO.
What's your drop? Withdrawal or loss?
I said withdrawal.
Is +200% low or not aggressive? :) It's a matter of statistics and the size of the risks. If you made a deposit and increased your deposit 10 times for one deal it is one thing. In this case the MM was quite normal and the deposit increase was due to a large number of trades. I don't understand.
I just do not understand, what do you want?
Sha! I don't want anything! I've got it all figured out! There was an assumption that it was just luck in three or four months. I repent. But I still don't believe in TA.
Why have you stopped trading? And if it is a system?
From 100 to 9,000 in less than a year! 90 times. And another 10 months? 810,000 quid! And in another 10 months?
Sha! I don't need anything! I got it all! There was an assumption that it was just luck in three or four months. I repent. But I still don't believe in TA.
Why did you stop trading? What if it's a system?
From 100 to 9,000 in less than a year! 90 times. And another 10 months? 810,000 quid! And in another 10 months?
Didn't stop. And at the same time I was trading other accounts (less aggressively as the sums were bigger). The scandals of that brokerage company were annoying, and they started to work worse.
It's not about my state, it's about the principle. Look at the rating leaders - there are those with long periods of time and with a large number of deals, without overdrafts and with a good MM. It is impossible to be equally lucky with statistics measured in thousands of trades. Of course, it does not exclude that sooner or later the laws underlying these systems will stop working. But it cannot be explained by luck (again, with significant statistical values of deals and MM observance).
this is certainly good, but you can explain the other thing to me - you look at these leaders in the rankings and you don't understand two things:
1. how with such profitability they still haven't become the richest people in the world?
2. How did brokerage companies, good old local brokerage companies, let them earn so much money for real money? Did they pay them out of their own pockets? Or did they pay out their lots of 100-200-300-----1500 dollars to market makers?
Explain it to me please
this is certainly good, but you can explain the other thing to me - you look at these leaders in the rankings and you don't understand two things:
1. how is it that with such profitability they still haven't become the richest people in the world?
because:
This of course does not rule out that sooner or later the patterns underlying these systems will stop working.
and with large amounts of money few people will trade/risk so aggressively.
2. how did the old, good, domestic brokerage houses let them earn that kind of money on the real? Did they pay them out of their own pockets? Or did they pay out their lots of 100-200-300-----1500 dollars to market makers?
If their profit margins are small and brokerage companies are big and take care of their reputations, they may well tolerate it. And not exactly from theirs - from other clients' pockets. But in principle it is almost their money :)