I'm good at draining - page 9
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 don't want to give you anything... and i don't have to prove anything to anyone...
I came up with an idea - whether it's good or bad is another matter - and ran into a wall of incomprehension...
Now I'm gonna spoon-feed them some more...
and from where? it's an idea i came up with an hour ago while reading this thread... Just an idea, that's all.
What you "came up with" now, others came up with and experienced years ago. "Everything has already been stolen before us", as one famous character said :)
What you 'invented' now, others invented and experienced years ago. "Everything has already been stolen before us", as a famous character used to say :)
Now that's true!!! Worth thinking about......
i haven't seen either.....
one idea has been floating around in my head just.... there's a 100% losing strategy when used for a long time...it's a martingale.... if you flip it, you can hope(although i don't know) that sooner or later it will shoot backwards.
Ta will have the same effect, the deposit will become zero.
What you "invented" now, others invented and tested years ago. "Everything has already been stolen before us", as one famous character said :)
There! And why did the man think there would be a minimum loss after nine episodes? Or am I missing something?
Gentlemen! Don't you think it is as difficult to make a confidently profitable martin as it is to make a profitable system without it? If the system consistently produced at least 1 profitable trade out of 5. And we were sure of it, then yes.
But in this case it turns out to be a losing system to which a martin is added. Apparently, to make the deposit go down faster.
Or am I missing something?
I don't get it.... or rather everything...the loss ALWAYS = minimum, even after 30 doubles!because stops are moved to breakeven or almost breakeven after each win.
Anyway, why am I sputtering if you can't even understand basic arithmetic.....
I don't get it.... or rather everything...loss ALWAYS = minimum, even after 30 doubling!because stops are moved to breakeven or almost breakeven after every win.
I mean, why am I sputtering if you can't even understand basic arithmetic.....
Yes! I don't get it. If I double the lot when I open the next order, it means that the previous one closed with a minus. Or does it not? Or if I don't put stops and open with a double lot at a certain distance, it means the open trade is already at a loss. And how can I move a stop to Breakeven when the trade is at a negative profit?
This is why I do not understand how the loss may be equal to a minimum. How is it, if for example there are 10 losing trades in a row, and each subsequent one with doubling. You may not have enough balance to open 11.
again for those in the tank....
"If I double the lot when I open the next order, it means that the previous one closed with a minus." No!!!
If I won a bet 2, I open - 4 ... If I won bet 4 I open -8 ... do not understand WHAT?
If you win the open double lot, winnings give interval safe reversal, in other words, the maximum you can withstand a drawdown in the amount of the previous rate plus and close at NOL. And you can put a stop and close in a small plus even at the reversal against the position within a certain interval ... in any case, the previous return amortizes the next bet... this is inversely proportional to a normal martin. having won you can double SAFE and always come out to zero, to the level of balance that was originally from the first bet of the series...
"Alternatively, if I don't put stops and open with double the lot at a certain distance, then the open trade is already at a loss. "
The open double bid cannot be in deficit because the previous bid was in surplus..... we do not close the previous surplus bid - we increase the position by doubling and the new doubled position is always initially in +...this plus is the amount of a safe move against the position to the original equity level of the former at the start of the series.
explain it like a baby....
ps. this is my last post on the subject.... If you don't get it, smoke bamboo..... I'm tired of saying simple things over and over again.
There! And why did the man think there would be a minimum loss after nine episodes? Or am I missing something?
Gentlemen! Don't you think it is as difficult to make a confidently profitable martin as it is to make a profitable system without it? If the system consistently produced at least 1 profitable trade out of 5. And we were sure of it, then yes.
But in this case it turns out to be a losing system, to which martin is added. Apparently, to make the deposit drain faster.
Making a profitable Expert Advisor with a Martin is easier than without it. As for the fact that the martin can fail. But you can also lose without it, if you do not interfere in the work of the Expert Advisor.
again for those in the tank....
"If I double the lot when I open the next order, it means that the previous one closed with a minus." No!!!
If I won a bet 2, I open - 4 ... If I won bet 4 I open -8 ... do not understand WHAT?
If you win the open double lot, winnings give interval safe reversal, in other words, the maximum you can withstand a drawdown in the amount of the previous rate plus and close at NOL. And you can put a stop and close in a small plus even at the reversal against the position within a certain interval ... in any case, the previous return amortizes the next bet... this is inversely proportional to a normal martin. having won you can double SAFE and always come out to zero, to the level of balance that was originally from the first bet of the series...
"Alternatively, if I don't put stops and open with double the lot at a certain distance, then the open trade is already at a loss. "
The open double bid cannot be in deficit because the previous bid was in surplus..... we do not close the previous surplus bid - we increase the position by doubling and the new doubled position is always initially in +...this plus is the amount of a safe move against the position to the original equity level of the former at the start of the series.
explain it like a baby....
ps. this is my last post on the subject.... If you don't get it, smoke bamboo..... I'm tired of saying simple things over and over again.
In terms of lot size yes. Or do you have a profit on an order already in the + at the time of opening? How is that possible? And what makes you think that your doubled position will go in the plus, and if it moves to the stop, it is already a loss along with the previous trade.
I may be smoking bamboo, do you think no one before you has done a martin with doubling after profit? Codify your idea, run it in the tester and then prove it. So far it's just talk and nothing more.