and wandering around randomly again... - page 12
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
You wouldn't believe...
Your purpose in this conversation is to shit in people's heads. You can't even point out the error in my words, but you declare them nonsense.
You'll do the same with my state.
I'll believe it. Go ahead, spit it out.
This is an important post for understanding your system. It's almost clear to me, I can start making an expert using your system).
I have my doubts, however...
The "compensator" will be a lot of work for you
I do. Go ahead, spit it out.
No, you won't.
You don't believe that two plus two is four.
I don't think so...
You're going to have to do a lot of work with the "compensator".
What remains unclear is how the profit is made on a no-trend if you have an averaging margin. It turns out that the compensator should give more profit than the loss from the martin.
Of course it does.
The easier it is, the less greedy the trader (the softer the martin)
Actually, it is theoretically possible to win at orljanka without martingale and infinite deposit, but, really, only in the limit. I have succeeded (on paper, of course), but the amount of winnings is not worth it.))
ZZY 5 years ago it was solved as an auxiliary problem. Now the technology has been lost, as it was no longer needed). In fact, the problem was not how to win, but how to maximize the pleasure of limited funds.)
I will not respond to comrades who do not even bother to understand what is written.
Of course you lose, but with a probability somewhat less than 0.5. Theoretical faith is not violated here in any way.
So No/(No+Np)->0.5 when the denominator tends to infinity. However No-Np <>0, in this case returning to zero or its vicinity is unlikely (although it is insignificant), i.e. No-Np can be any number, including infinite. Thus, by controlling the stake size one may minimize losses, trying to keep profits of the winning ones. Due to some "unfairness" of coin No<>Np, which is almost always true (see textbooks)) and get some winnings, always less than |No-Np|. Although, in terms of probability - No/(No+Np)->0.5 the coin remains absolutely fair.))
What and who, knowing at least the basics of theoretical belief, can find anything surprising in this?
ZS For those who have not yet understood.) This is a theoretical construct and you don't live in it. This is a theoretical construction and you do not live forever.)
Of course.
It's all the easier the less greedy the trader (the gentler the martin)
No, you won't.
You don't believe that two plus two is four.
No, you don't.
You don't believe that two plus two is four
forum blabbermouths run like hell from the offer to post the state.
there is such a category of people, they like to make themselves look like cool dudes on forums, graalevites.
I don't believe in "two plus two equals four", I believe in "you can make money on the eagle".
Well, spit it out. And I'll write "I do" right away.
Forum talkers run like hell from an offer to post a statement.
There is a category of people who like to show themselves off on forums as tough dudes, graaleways.
Absolutely futile, for reasonable people, distraction strategy: not a word about errors in my words... and hysterical squealing about my laziness to "get the apples to demonstrate the law of addition"
It's too late, guys... He who has ears to hear...
And what is the frequency of transactions, can you say, 1 per 15 min, 1 per hour... or?
Estimate from the charts. (Poundbucks, net step = 40 p. on 4-digits. Two accounts trading in opposite directions. Grids of accounts shifted by 20 pts relative to each other)