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
That decisions should be made collegially.
Even disagreements, discussions and arguments are fine, but without virtual beatings, and even without virtual pissing of trousers.
Even though we are all very different, it's even interesting.
The "virtual piss trousers" thing, that's not for me. It's not my epithet.
That's right. Trade is like a beloved woman - beautiful from any angle, whether you look up or down. The same is true for the trading results - as native children, there is no such thing as a bad one. And the best ones have to be judged in any case.
There's no shortage of Volchanskiy Lyosha.
Lyosha, why didn't you join this battle?
About "virtually pissing your trousers" - that's not for me.
You shouldn't really either :)))
Yeah yeah, not you Oleg, it's more of an appeal to everyone. I call for a quieter discussion.
You really shouldn't either :)))
Yes yes, not to you Oleg, it's more of an appeal to everyone. I call for a quieter discussion.
Does your collegiate ethics prevent you from noticing whose words are those?
My suggestion to accept. The date by which a participant can be verified is the last day of the competition, not the last day of the entry 9.07.17
Server
Vitaly
Andrey
No objection?
If at the end of the event the competitor does not have the status of "verified" - disqualification. that's my opinion.
If at the end of the event a competitor does not have the status of "verified" - disqualification. this is my opinion.
+ sensible
Do your collegiate ethics prevent you from noticing whose words these are?
not so, any reasonable suggestions are only - in favour!
p.s.
I'll say it again
Personally myself, I don't believe that the majority has anything reasonable to offer, if there are objections - I can argue convincingly.
The way the world works is that the sane, literate and progressive are proposed and implemented by a minority.
add mine https://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/320581
Please sign up !SIGN UP NOW until 23:59:59 on 9.07.2017- to be exact !
https://view.new10.top/en/contest/3 July
The problem is that when calculating the rating of a contestant who has a recovery factor of 0, the formula steals them 0.5 points.
(0-0)/(486-0)*0.5 = 0, and a competitor with a recovery factor of 486 will receive (486-0)/(486-0)*0.5 = 0.5
Although 0 is better than 486.
Actually, application of the recovery factor in its pure form without any restrictions in the formula is a bit dubious, because essentially strategies with the recovery factor 0, 500 and 20 can differ in one trade with a difference of a couple of dollars.
Consequently, comparison of trading results of participants distorts the real situation.
We can slightly modify the formula to solve all these problems simultaneously for the current championship (moreover, it is not a rule change, but just correction of an inaccuracy found in the formula).
Give a concrete example.
In any case, a participant with an infinitely large balance, zero drawdown and infinite fv will have the maximum possible - 3 points, and deserved national honour and respect (although such a situation is impossible). Don't forget the requirement of at least 10 deals.
As you can see, there are no problems.
This is what a non-substantive argument sometimes looks like from the outside: