What does a fair formula for rating Signals look like? - page 5
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
Not a fact far away: I saw a Vietnamese man who was chickening out for his 200 quid and saw 10k of ISP funds just drain away. Thought 10k was some kind of guarantee. No one knows who is on the other end and how much they value their money. I have also encountered accounts worth millions, as I understand it, PAMM. But this can only be guessed by money movements (if you know how else - write).
Of course, there are no guarantees.
But, the thing is, that the man for whom $10k is a trifle which can be squandered for fun - he won't bother with signals. If he does not care about money, he will not care about payment for subscribers. However, a trader shaking hands for $200, but steadily trading in profit - will rather quickly increase Equity owing to trading, and then - at the expense of subscribers.
The advantage of evaluating of rating purely by Equity is that this indicator has the best balance between what Provider thinks about his/her TS and his/her desire to "pay off a Subscriber".
Million dollar PAMMs - again - only own Equity accounts are important. Investors funds should not participate in the rating. They just show the popularity of the account, and it is often random. Not for nothing well-known firm "at A" includes in PAMMs rating only those PAMMs, own funds of which are not less than $3K
Foreigners with salaries of $3,000 will be at the top of the list. the Saudis will be at the top.
Why would a foreigner with a salary of 3,000 dollars bother with a penny signal?
Who cares about what, but the louse about the bath...)
This is not a discussion about how to choose what for whom.
What is being discussed are the principles of a "fair" rating.
I just said that I liked the idea of taking into account real money which is risked by a signal provider.
As for me, it's not good, when risking 30$ someone may demand the same fee for monthly signal...
also it's strange, that such provider has 30$ of his own funds at risk, while millions of dollars of subscribers "charmed rating" do not count...
I wish you a good signal choice and good profits from it).
"And the idea of limiting subscription costs to 1% of the signal provider's funds should be implemented immediately! o)"
nothing can be limited. a market is a market. a seller sets a price of 20 dollars. who doesn't like the price of a product at a bazaar, passes them by.
I don't know why a foreigner, whose salary is 3000 dollars each, should bother with a penny signal?
I don't know why, but there are plenty of them.
Not a fact far away: I saw a Vietnamese man who was chickening out for his 200 quid and saw 10k of ISP funds just drain away. Thought 10k was some kind of guarantee. No one knows who is on the other end and how much they value their money. I have also encountered accounts worth millions, as I understand it, PAMM. But this can only be guessed from the movement of money (if you know how else - write).
But it is a normal formula, I say as someone who uses a search engine in signals and looks through 10-20 pages while I calm down.
The only thing that would be really missing - data downloading by EN signals and then analyze the software or excel. I tried to log on to the site (to go through the software signals) through WebRequest, but I understand it is no longer possible to
i have seen accounts that often make deposits and withdrawals. i did not understand why. i thought it made the yield curve more attractive. it looks like pamm.
I don't know why, but there are plenty of them.
Can you give me an example of at least three signals with own funds of $3K or more ?
Very much in line with my thoughts.
It's a pity this rather fundamental idea is not heard.
It's not even that we should discard the other indicators, although lovers of "playing with figures" have heard exactly that((.
Introduced a distinction between demo and real (kotir can be different), but the idea was to check the seriousness, and here cent accounts roll ...
Weighing the rating on the real equity of the signal provider's account is a very sensible idea and a good regulator with feedback, in terms of risks to subscribers.
And the idea of limiting the cost of subscription to 1% of the signal provider's funds should be implemented immediately! o)
Why limit a provider's earnings if subscribers are willing to pay for it...what do you care...if a provider has $10 and 2000 people pay $30 for a signal that's fine...
or do you feel bad that providers can make good money without capital....
Victor Ziborov:
Я считаю, что справедливая формула рейтинга сигналов должна быть следующей:
DepoLifetime X Gain X Sharpe Ratio and divide it all by the Drawdown value.
In my opinion, the ranking should have taken into account as separate components in the formula
- as an average return over several periods (e.g. by months), so that rating would take into account new data and would be more flexible
- mat expectation
- Average profit trade to loss trade ratio
Some people write whether or not subscribers are needed in the formula... but as they say bees can do no wrong )
---
I like the idea of taking into account real money at the risk of a signal provider.
- The trading quality depends on the ratio of equity profit to equity drawdown.
There are 23 non-linear adjustable components in the formula.
ok.
interesting )
On the point of MQ not being interested in the success of any particular signal, then you're wrong too? )
interesting )
on the point of MQ not being interested in the success of any particular signal, then you are wrong too? )
why limit a provider's earnings if subscribers are willing to pay for it...what do you care...if a provider has $10 and 2000 people pay $30 for a signal that's fine...
or do you feel bad that ISPs can make good money without capital....
This is a completely different matter.
Nobody is limiting signal providers, they are right in showing exorbitant interest on micro cent accounts and "taking coupons" from suckers.
But, like we say, it is about "a fair rating formula"? And in this case, one should be guided solely by the Provider's opinion of his signal. Not what he says about it, but what he really thinks. Your own tools are a very good reflection of those thoughts.
And thoughts are all too often "grab and go before you drain". Which does not at all characterise the signal as sustainable and profitable.