Making money on forex is impossible - page 25
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
Forex is an art ;)
And art is known to require sacrifice ))))
+1
For example, debt obligations (Gos.) have a 10% annual interest rate.
But much more stable than forex and bank deposits.
With $1,000,000 in hand you have to be an idiot to take it to forex.
+10000
I had moments when I could "stably" make 10-100% a day.
I was sure I caught a bluebird and started to turn the globe, where I could buy myself an island, because if I trade 5% a day, it turns out more than 32000% per annum.
Greed killed ... a classic of the genre.
Forex is an art ;)
Not a machine, but an artist, or maybe an artist!
Greed has killed ... a classic of the genre.
It's not greed. It's nature taking over.
The systematic and stable earnings on forex is not possible.
Is this a result of frustration, or are you waiting for a rebuttal?
Trying to trade forex is playing with a negative mathematical expectation
It is possible to tweak it.
That statement is based on test results. The tests were performed by a program. Its task was to choose a timeframe, a set of indicators and entry/exit points.
Using indicators to make predictions is not a good idea. I hope you are not predicting the weather for tomorrow with a room thermometer.
Let everyone draw their own conclusions.
Well, that goes without saying. :)
In order not to confuse these concepts (it comes from the MT tester, the drawdown is calculated on closed trades). Many people are confused and deceived by this. Do not be fooled. To fix is to exit a trade.
Keep 1 simple example in mind.
The TS went into a position and sustained a 1000 pips drawdown, but the market rolled back and the TS closed at +5 pips.
Now there are two systems of calculations. The first one says all is OK, there is no drawdown and the profit is +5 (he counts by closing).
The second system of calculations says that the sink should be thrown out of such TS, because at the moment was a drawdown -1000.
S.I. You choose what to use, deceive yourself and think all is well or really look for TCs that have minimal drawdown. Going back to MTs again you won't get it because there is no tick history. You will not be able to get and find the TS with minimal drawdown. Once again I will give you the link to the TS where it is shown that the TS which has a max drawdown of 4 ticks is profitable.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/152354/page3#980354
There is a more accurate and mathematically correct concept of efficiency of entry, exit and transaction is given below formulas (no need to calculate all sorts of average characteristics), on one transaction you can understand good or bad TS
Strange as it may seem, but I also came up with almost the same formula, but with my own reasoning. The only difference is that I add this same "efficiency" with one and get what I call (for myself) the real or true profit factor, as opposed to the "paper" MT-factor. And unlike that silly formula which is usually used to calculate the profit factor, with this formula it can be calculated even for one single transaction.
And by the way, any transaction may be represented as a candlestick, because any transaction has entry (open), exit (close), the high (profit) point and the low (loss) point (low). Accordingly, a series of consecutive deals (their results) can be displayed as a sequence of bars (candlesticks), rather than as a simple curve (the so-called equity). Which is much more informative in my opinion. But to be honest, trades must necessarily be sequential. But maybe there's a way around this restriction (didn't think of that).
The formula: the profit factor as the sum of one and the quotient of dividing the candle's body by the modulus of difference between its maximum and minimum.
Here a profitable trade is a white candle and a losing trade is a black candle. The body of the candle is taken with a '+' sign if the candle is white and with a '-' sign if it is black.
And now, after a bit of digging on the Internet, we have the formula:
The formula for calculating efficiency:
EE = RRP/PP;
Where: ORC is a realized price difference (difference between the OPEN price and the CLOSE price taking into account the direction of the trade); RP is the potential profit (difference between the maximum price and the minimum price of the trade).
Total efficiency forlong positions is calculated using the formula:
DE = (Close - Open)/(max - min);
Where: Max - maximum price; min - minimum price; close - close price; open - open price.
Total efficiency for short positions:
OE = (Open - Close)/(max - min);
I wonder why I haven't come across it before. Probably, it's because I didn't search for it. Once again you become convinced of "how little I know" and the proverb "For a long time you live, you learn.
(Bulashov will have to read, sounds like a smart guy)).
And as for the word "fix", a little later I will try to lay out my thoughts. I need to think how best to do this. I have something to say. In the context of drawdown.
I just did a little digging on the Internet and immediately found the formula:
I'm surprised I haven't come across it before. Probably because I didn't look for it. Once again you become convinced of "how little I know" and the proverb "For a long time you live, you learn.
(Bulashov will have to read, sounds like a smart guy)).
And as for the word "fix", a little later I will try to lay out my thoughts. I need to think how best to do this. I have something to say. In the context of drawdown.
bullshit...
bullshit...
I see your point... To each his own. I don't give a shit what you think. There's a lot of smart-ass loco-heads around here.
The formula: the profit factor as the sum of one and the quotient of dividing the body of the candle by the modulus of the difference between its high and low.
Here a profitable trade is a white candle and a losing trade is a black candle. The candlestick body is taken with "+" sign if the candlestick is white and with "-" sign if it is black.
I wrote something wrong yesterday. I put values into formula and it looks like some nonsense. I haven't used it for a long time, I've forgotten already.
In general, the profit factor is usually calculated as quotient of profit divided by loss. You must have at least one profitable and one losing trade. I.e. there are situations when it is impossible to calculate the profit factor even for a series of trades, let alone to calculate it for one trade. What can I say, it is an idiotic formula. But to each his own.
Otherwise, a deal can be represented as an iceberg, and only the tops are used in calculations, while the entire underwater part, usually the largest one, is omitted. I think this is a fundamentally flawed approach. But to each his own.
What I mean is this. If a deal is represented as a candlestick, then not only its body, but its shadows must be used in the analysis.
Okay, there's no time to get into a long argument here, so here's the formula:
I'll finish it later.
What bad luck, I wrote it and accidentally deleted it.(((( If I have time, I'll write it again or in the evening.
Here it is rewritten:
In order not to break the thought on the tree, I will try to be brief.
We take the full size of a candle from max to min, mark it by D, profit by P and loss by U. Then
Pf = (Y-Y)/(Y-P)
If you want to check it, substitute values, argue, but if possible, not in such a tone:"bullshit... ...", but with argumentation. Otherwise, it looks more like insulting and trolling.