How is the ranking constructed in Signals? - page 2
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
I'm sorry, but how can the top signal be higher in the ranking than the bottom one? Profitability is lower, percentage of profitable trades is MUCH LOWER, profit factor is MUCH LOWER, drawdown is LARGER. HOW?
https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/mt4/page96
>>>First question, why hide the formula ?
>> corruption ? - just kidding.
>>maybe they will correct it and improve the service.
Rinat has promised a radical correction to the rating next week, so there is no need to look at this formula. Although who needs to know it for a long time, roughly of course.
will someone comment?)) I wonder how that happened).
And you look in detail inside each signal and sort out the reasons yourself.
The complaints of those who want to be evaluated by 1-2 parameters and who do not understand that the authors of the rating have gone through a hundred iterations of improving formulas, having looked at a lot of one-way things, look very sad.
Zelensky is blatantly obnoxious, of course. I recommend that you keep an eye on the reasonableness of the wording.
Zelensky is blatantly obnoxious, of course. I advise you to watch the reasonableness of your wording.
It's pronounced "Zelensky".
About "outright bullshit" - no problem, I deleted my posts so as not to get into details and unnecessary arguments.
I'm sorry, but how can the top signal be higher in the ranking than the bottom one? Profitability is lower, percentage of profitable trades is MUCH LOWER, profit factor is MUCH LOWER, drawdown is LARGER. HOW?
https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/mt4/page96
I also saw this discrepancy 100500 times, the best signal in the ranking is lower by all parameters.
Maybe the moderator can explain what the secret is or the answer will be, if you don't like it go to hell.
.
I have also seen this discrepancy 100500 times, by all parameters the best signal in the ranking is lower.
Maybe a moderator can explain what the secret is, or the answer will be, if you don't like it, fuck off.
.
If you do not like it, let's go to hell.
But seriously, it seems to me that the first signal has three times more trades - it indicates greater stability, while the second signal is more likely to have random results.
Although - everything is a guess...
will someone comment?)) I wonder how that happened).
Signals on page 96 - what's there to comment on? Use sorting and filters to see the signal you want only on the first page. Are you seriously going to compare some signals on the periphery?
PS No, already on 97 - https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/mt4/page97
No one promised to fix the rating. It was only about improving the service.
And you look in detail inside each signal and figure out the reasons yourself.
The complaints of those who want a score on 1-2 parameters and do not realise that the authors of the rating have gone through a hundred iterations of improving the formulas, having seen a lot of one-way things.
Zelensky is blatantly obnoxious, of course. I recommend you watch the reasonableness of the wording.
Even without looking inside the signal it is easy to determine that the account above in the ranking is shitty martin (34% profitable but in the plus).
But I didn't take the trouble to look it up. The second account trades a fixed lot, increasing with the growth of the deposit, from the beginning was the working lot 0.03, then 0.04, and now 0.05 lots. Working lot is chosen reasonable 1.5% of the deposit, stops are present.
So how is this signal any worse than a bare martin, which is going to be sold out in the near future?
Signals on page 96 - what's there to comment on? Use sorting and filters to see the signal you want only on the first page. Are you seriously going to compare some signals on the periphery?
PS No, already on 97 - https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/mt4/page97
+
never look at the rating!