The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 413

 
Uladzimir Izerski:

He's old-fashioned, he just forgot to put a minus sign in the targets.

)) Very funny.
If Automat revises the concept slightly, it will beat you all.
In particular, it will give up its commitment to no-loss trades. Well, not only that.
 
Yuriy Asaulenko:
)) Very funny.
If Automat revises the concept slightly, it will beat you all.
In particular, it will give up its commitment to no-loss trades. Well, not only that.

I don't need to be beaten. Let him beat the market.

 
Олег avtomat:

At the start

As promised, I wishyou every success)

 
Uladzimir Izerski:

I don't need to be beaten. Let him beat the market.

What market? DC probably. Two big differences.)
 
Yuriy Asaulenko:
What market? DC probably. Two big differences.))

It's still a long way from the market.)

 
Aleksey Nikolayev:

As promised, I wishyou every success).

Thank you.

And to you as well.

 
Uladzimir Izerski:

I don't need to be beaten. Let him beat the market.

Uladzimir Izerski:

He's a long way from the market.)

I'm assuming you've already beaten the market?

And it's all about the upside, no downside.

That's funny.

 
Yuriy Asaulenko:
)) Very funny.
If Automat revises the concept slightly, it will beat you all.
In particular, it will give up its commitment to no-loss trades. Well, not only that.

The task of "finishing", if you ignore a certain number of losing trades and consider them as a necessary evil, has already been solved, and is no longer of sporting interest to me.

But the problem of "improvement" without losing trades, i.e. only in profit, has not been solved yet. I need a solution to this very problem. And it is already close. ;)

 
Here, some stubborn "brainiacs", due to their stubbornness and lack of intelligence, simply do not understand what I do and why I do it. And there is no point in explaining anything to such "brainiacs".
 
Олег avtomat:

But the problem of "killing" without losing trades, i.e. only on the plus side, has not yet been solved. I need a solution to this very problem. And it's already close. ;)

1. it is unlikely.
2. what for?
Reason: