Any rookie question, so as not to clutter up the forum. Professionals, don't pass by. Nowhere without you - 6. - page 213
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
Read the story of probably the biggest martingale... "It wasn't the point that killed me, it was the ace by eleven".
In 1993 Nick Leeson was appointed general manager of the futures branch of Barings Bank in Singapore. In this capacity he was able to hide his secret trading operations for more than a year, as he managed both the back office and the trading. Barings Bank's senior managers were mostly experienced in trading firms and knew little about stock trading. The large profits should have led management to believe that there was significant risk involved, but they continued to believe that Leeson dealt equally with the Singapore Foreign Exchange (Simex) and the Osaka exchange, and therefore profited from low-risk operations.
As losses grew, Lison increased his bets. However, after the Nikkei Index collapsed due to the earthquake in Japan, losses rose catastrophically and the deficit was over $1 billion. This was too much for the bank; in March 1995 it was bought by Dutch bank ING for just one pound.
I experimentally used two to three pairs on the tester to find conditions whereby from 2000 to 2013 pairs showed ONCE only 2-3 stops in a row,
and HOWEVER, there was only 1 stop.
But the trades were not made every day. I think 2-3 stops in a row is acceptable for Martingale.
My experience with two to three pairs in the tester was that from 2000 to 2013 pairs only showed 2-3 stops in a row.
But the trades were not made every day. I think for Martingale 2-3 stops in a row is acceptable.
Well, you said yourself that you've picked up the conditions). Maybe you'll get lucky, try it out. But on micro accounts to start with. And you will see Murphy's Law in action)))))))
Well you said it yourself, picking up the conditions)). Maybe you will get lucky, try it out. But first, on micro accounts. And you will see Murphy's Law in action)))))))
If these conditions have worked for 13 years ..... why shouldn't they work now?
After all, it looks like a pattern that technical analysis uses.
If the triangle has been broken through upwards 900 times out of 1000 times on history - it means that it will break through upwards 900 times out of 1000 times in the future as well.
After all, if Japan had not had an earthquake, maybe Nick would be OK. It's a force majeure that can't be predicted... he's just unlucky.
Well, you yourself say that you have picked up the conditions). Maybe you'll get lucky, try it out. But on micro accounts to start with. And you will see Murphy's Law in action)))))))
I probably misspoke - I experimented with conditions and came across ones that gave the above result.
Of course, regularities have to be caught and monitored. But to use martingale in case of failure is a shorter route to losing the deposit.
Regularities should certainly be caught and tracked. But to use martingale in case of failure is a shorter way to losing the deposit.
Everyone says so - but I'm so set in my ways that until I find out for myself (i.e. after losing a very small amount) I won't rest.
Everyone says so - but no one can explain to me exactly the flaw in my plan.
If I have sufficient free funds and if I correctly calculate the volume of each position (especially positions that follow a stop position)
Why will I lose if a row will very rarely go 2 stop - superfrequently - 3 stops - usually 1 stop. but just in case you can keep in stock
I have 4 or 5 stops available as well.
If I understand what my first and second conditions are and the line that is always fulfilled, I will come close to solving this mystery.
THIS IS THE FIRST CONDITION
if ((ot==0))
&&(Bid==Price)
&&(Open[1]-Close[1]>100*Point&&Open[1]-Close[1]<120*Point)
&&(High[1]-Open[1]>40*Point&&High[1]-Open[1]<60*Point)
&&(Close[1]-Low[1]>40*Point&&Close[1]-Low[1]<60*Point))
THIS IS THE SECOND CONDITION
if (isCloseLastPosByStop(Symbol(), OP_BUY, Magic, Lot))
THIS IS A STRING THAT WILL ALWAYS BE EXECUTED
return(0);
Right?
That's just it .... I'm already racking my brain.
Did I get the SECOND CONDITION wrong?
But I only have these two ifs in starte.
Or the second condition is else.
Unless, of course, both conditions refer to start...
That's just it .... I'm already racking my brain.
Did I get the SECOND CONDITION wrong?
But I only have these two ifs in starte.
Or the second condition is else.
It also needs to be taken into account
That's just it .... I've already racked my brain.
Did I guess the SECOND CONDITION wrong?
I wrote an example WITHOUT your code. This is an example of where there are curly braces { } and where there are none... I wrote which lines will be executed and when. I just wanted you to understand how to organize logic in your code. YOU DON'T HAVE CURLY BRACES... So see in my example what happens in this case.
You don't need to guess!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just try to understand...