Twenty-four, and not one iota more! - page 16
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
It is not a system at all if the result depends on 1 point.
If 150 or 149 or 100 or 200, it still works in profit, it is a system. That's what the tester is for - to separate the working from the non-working.
Oh, man. Sticks. Yes, on any period there is such a threshhold, when because of one pip the profitability of the system drops many times. I mean, a man has not lived for thousands of years to wait until his millenium-sized sample proves to be right. And there is not so much money, who has - he does not need to trade.
The scale is post-production, the number of deals varies naturally.
Stupid
Christmas trees. Sticks. Yes, on any period there is such a threshhold, when because of one pip the profitability of the system drops many times. I mean, a man has not lived for thousands of years to wait until his millenium-sized sample proves to be right. And there is not so much money, who has - he does not need to trade.
I'll say it again. If one pip causes the system's profitability to drop several times, throw it away. It's not a system. This is trash.
The problem is probably the number of deals. If there are dozens of them, the profit may jump many times from a few points of tp change. If there are hundreds/thousands of them, the profit will change smoothly with tp change.
Yes, on any period there is such a threshhold, when because of one pip the profitability of the system drops many times.
The problem is probably the number of trades. If there are dozens of them, the profit may jump several times from a few points of tp change. If there are hundreds/thousands of them, the profit will change smoothly with tp change.
I even think the problem is the size of the stop. You put a stop of a kilometre and trade in profit for a couple of months at a time. They trade profit for a couple of months at 45 degrees.
And then they lose everything, one pip wasn't enough to sit it out.
I am too lazy to learn how to program )))) I am lazy to manually calculate stops and set them ))))). I want a lot of money fast)))). ) Quite understandable)))). ) So I desperately need a fixed stop for all times )))).
You speak as if the ability to program and "count stops" has made someone rich, and not quickly and a lot, but quickly and for a long time.
I'm talking about principles, about morals, about concepts. So far they just want to prove to me that a fucking large sample will soften all studs and achieve victory over chaos. My answer is: with a deposit and longevity of a celestial, yes. In other options, no.
I even think the problem is the size of the stop. They put a stop of a kilometre and trade in profit for a couple of months at a time. They trade profit for a couple of months at 45 degrees.
And then they lose everything, one pip wasn't long enough to sit it out.
Yeah, yeah! But look - a short stop has its limitations.
I just went and bought some pickles from a local farmer, I'll eat them and then I'll write about them right away.
Cucumbers, not feet.
So far they just want to prove to me that a fucking large sample will soften all studs and achieve victory over chaos.
Yeah, yeah! But look, the short-stop has its limitations.
I just went and bought some pickles from a local farmer, I'm going to eat them and I'll write right away.
Cucumbers, not feet.
A larger stop requires more statistics (trades). The minimum number of trades is needed for systems with tp/sl=1. The more this ratio deviates from one, the more trades are needed for statistical validity. In advanced cases of martingale, when stop=margin call, the number of deals needed for statistics tends to infinity))))