Donald - Nathanson - page 4
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
ok... it's very simple:
1. always bet on red. (on buy for example)
2. when you win we lower the bet by 1, when you lose by 1 we raise it and so on.
3. if the rate reaches zero, we switch to black or leave it at a minimum level.
4. according to the law of the mathematical distribution, the longer make bets, the more results will take the form of a normal Gaussian curve, i.e. roughly 50/50 (win/loss).
5. making bets by such principle if stops and number of winning/losing are equal, profit is exactly 50% of all bets in the volume of one per bet.
i.e. if we have sl 50p and tp 50p, initial bet 1, total transactions of 1000, of which we won 500 and lost 500 we get a profit of 500*1, ie 50% of all bets in the unit rate.
and this is with zero mathematical expectation and normal distribution of random walk of win/loss.
this is mathematically proven...
If we did not use such a betting system, with the same zero expected payoff, profit would be exactly = 0, as it should be with normal distribution...
I'm sick of it (100500 ways to beat roulette at least without Zero)...
I'm sure Mr. Nathanson raised money not at roulette, but by tricking suckers into an "amazing system".
PS. I know a good roulette game - as long as you win you play, as soon as you lose you leave. The total amount of course is minus, but the free booze and insane company sort of make up for it.
... If my masters of martin saying that it does not matter where to open the market is accidental, as long as they are able to make a profit (for example, a cool guy, if he's not lying)...
Why should I lie...?
Who can point the finger at the reason that should prevent me from making a profit by playing with volumes...?
I can't get enough of this (100500 ways to beat roulette without at least Zero)...
I'm sure Mr. Nathanson didn't make any money at roulette, but by scamming suckers with an "amazing system".
PS. known to me a good variant of roulette - as long as you win you play, as soon as you lose you leave. Of course it's a minus in total, but the free booze and the crazy company kind of make up for it...
she wins with zero, too.
I described the mathematics of the system in great detail and you just put it down, this text must have passed over your brain... but you have to say your negative opinion...)
that everything sucks and the sun... lantern...
I will not explain anymore ... all like a pea against a wall ...
It seems to me there are 3 ways out.
that's right...
yes, it is the trends that are created, either by price or as in this system from negative/positive bets...
and if there is a strong trend of losing trades no amount of betting stratification will help...
it's like that in martingale and it's the same here...
and yet, i think the market is a random wandering with odds, and the fact that there are strong trends does not mean the opposite ... it's just a distribution... with a tendency to trend...
but no one ever knows when the trend starts when and where it ends...
2. identical stops (say sl 50p - tp 50p) spread is not counted yet!
You should not count the spread.
Already in the first millisecond after the opening of a trade the terminal will calculate the profit, and it will appear that you are in deficit by the value of the spread. If we add equal stop and take, you will get equal chance to close in any of these two directions, but it will not compensate losses on the spread. Each order will statically take away money equal to the value of spread and commission. As a result, you will lose.
You may try to work a little smarter with points - shift the point so as to compensate the spread. I.e. take = stop + spread. Now it turns out that under condition of 50% win in any direction you can hope for zero in balance.
But, this very condition "50% win in either direction" in this case just do not work. Since take profit is larger, the price will reach it less often than to the stop. Stop will be closed more often than Take because of their slight difference, and you will be in the red again. The result is a loss.
This is a rubbish, not a strategy.
well, thank you for opening my eyes! what would i do without you... the great truth about the spread... and it turns out there's a zero on roulette, and Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas... and the grass is green...
I learned so much today)
I didn't count the spread just to avoid confusion,for the sake of clarity.... if it was affected by the spread, i would take it into account...but the spread doesn't play any royalty here...
because if you win 50% of the spread of 48 pips and lose 50% -50 pips there would be no difference... and you'll be on the plus side...
This is a futility, not a strategy.
If you got the idea of the strategy, you can tell me if you got the idea and its mathematical basis, or you just decided to say your bad idea just in case...
and if you understand the essence of this strategy so justify to me clearly, what will not work and why ... just using the mathematical apparatus that is in the system, well if you really understand everything it will be no problem...
Well thank you for opening my eyes!
Don't be sarcastic. I wasn't writing to you, but to warn those who happened to take your idea seriously.
Don't try to find a system to win on the sb. it's a waste of time.
The theory of probability says that you can't win on a lib. the theory of probability is proven mathematically;)
don't try to find a system to win on the sb. you'll only waste time.
You can't win with a constant bet. But with Martingale and the like with increasing the lot you can (theoretical, and practical or not enough money, or limiting the bet).
With a constant bet, you can't. But with Martingale and similar methods with increasing the lot you can (theoretical, and practical, or not enough money, or a bet limit).
You have not mentioned another mechanism, which allows you to trade profitably with variable lot, without betting restrictions, without fearing for the deposit, both practically and theoretically.
Rationale: the presence of "creative" potential in the movement of input data values to an INCREDIBLE degree than "destructive" potential.