Not the Grail, just a regular one - Bablokos!!! - page 183
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
You may build the same levels on one currency pair, you may build anything, even a channel :D There is no difference, horizontal channels do not exist, it's an illusion, a dream.
I can fill even on one pair, I have to fill the same series against the movement of total equity-synthetic, of course one can open orders not for the whole series but for some pairs-versus the wool or to the direction of the wool but we don't know the future because it is useless.
The same levels can be built on one pair - anything you want, even a channel or an anl :D. There is no difference here and there, it is an illusion.
To mediate as in Ilana is to make things worse.
There is no other way) any refilling in any form will aggravate the situation
This topic will not die as long as romantics live))))
It has already been explained a million times, that it is equal to trading one instrument, but you pay multiple times more spread... There was not a single monitor with public showing of profitability... but there were leaks of pams (someone called Sl@v@... or something like that nickname, in Alps, one of the sect members of Necolla) and demos. But no, all the same on all forums something dig and believe in the grail))).
I`ve recently observed (I`m not the only one) one of MT4 signalers in Alpine opened a PAMM... I poured about 300-400K $... The managers there were very upset. My problem was that I was trying to provoke them, but they knew that he was giving away free cigarettes and recruited a good base of "interested" traders. Then I penned that I opened a PAMM and everything started to go crazy... However, they screwed up later, because they cut his leverage to 100, and he liked martingale... I kind of left. But the fact is that he made a name for himself as "the smartest and the most beautiful", and then he opened a BMM and got about half a mill in one week. I will not be surprised if Necolla or Joker will soon open a PAMM somewhere with links to their PT posts:)
People just do not have the brains to think thoroughly and understand what it is, their mentality ... They are all intelligent people, some with higher education and even more than one, but it's the same whether it's just a forehead or a mouthful).
I supplemented the post...
There is no other way) any kind of topping up will aggravate the situation
If any strategy requires shares or averaging, that's confirmation of its fiasco. Then it's better to do a traditional, albeit not too much, but fairly stable earning martingale, as I have done.)
I'd like to......., in a nutshell.
If the strategy requires pumping or averaging, it proves its fiasco. Then it is better to make a traditional, albeit not too much, but quite stable earning martingale, as I did)).
Every system needs to be pumped or averaged, unless of course you want to end up with a stop loss of 50% or just sit tight in a drawdown, spitting on the ceiling.
Fill-ups make the system more flexible.
I would like to......., in a nutshell.
The easiest way: open both ways at once and average both ways without any indicators. When we reach a certain profit we close all trades and remove the pending orders. The test has been successful since 1999. Unfortunately, the profit is not large and I don't use this trading robot on real account. Well, if you set up stable operation since 2009 using indicators, you can earn more than 100% on average per year without reinvesting.
Every system needs to be filled or averaged, unless you want about 50% of deals to end with a stop loss (the one that is in deficit, not trailing;)) or you just want to sit tight in a drawdown, spitting on the ceiling)))
Fill-ups make the system more flexible.
If you use averaging, you can open the first trade at random without any system or indicators and make a steady profit. So there is no need for such a system. Another thing is when the system uses only one order in the market and stably receives profit, such a system deserves to be called a system.
Such systems are stable only for very short periods, when the market behaves approximately as it was when the system was developed. The rest of the time they lose. The systems always guessing the direction of the next deal without errors do not exist, any such system starts to be mistaken sooner or later, sooner rather than later. They are not fools sitting on the other side of the terminal either.
Such systems are only stable for very short periods, where the market behaves roughly as it did at the time the system was developed. The rest of the time, they are lost. The systems always guessing the direction of the next deal without errors do not exist, any such system starts to be mistaken sooner or later, sooner rather than later. They are not fools sitting on the other side of the terminal either.