Registration of participants, for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship, August 2017 - 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
Any additional conditions prove to be a double-edged sword: they play against some and at the same time play in favour of others.
As a rule, it turns out that "good wishes to improve the rules" have well-defined lobbying goals, although they are camouflaged in various plausible guises. (We've been over this many times).
No additional conditions should be imposed. The real score, the goal is to win, and then it's up to the contestant.
Any additional conditions prove to be a double-edged sword: they play against some and at the same time play in favour of others.
As a rule, it turns out that "good wishes to improve the rules" have well-defined lobbying goals, although they are camouflaged in various plausible guises. (We've been over this many times).
No additional conditions should be imposed. The real score, the goal is to win, and then everything is at the contestant's discretion.
Here, this is the most correct. If you have a deposit, trade as you see fit, even if it is half a deposit in one transaction.
There, that's the right thing to do. If you have a deposit, trade as you see fit, even if it is half a deposit per trade.
Or even the entire deposit. The contestant bears all the risks with his deposit.
There, that's the right thing to do. If you have a deposit, trade as you see fit, even if it's half a deposit per trade.
And the summing up must be done in this way: the final profit is the main thing and that's it! There should be no other accounting parameters. As they say, above profits - only honour. And the distribution of places and prizes should be as follows:
1. 50% - to the one who made the biggest profit;
2. 30% to the one who made slightly less profit;
3. 20% - to the one who made even less profit.
That's it! How they made those profits is nobody's business.
And the summing up should be done in this vein: put the final profit only at the top of the list and that's it! There should be no other accounting parameters. As they say, above profit - only honour. And the distribution of places and prizes should be as follows:
1. 50% - to the one who made the biggest profit;
2. 30% to the one who made slightly less profit;
3. 20% - to the one who made even less profit.
That's it! How they made those profits is nobody's business.
This was originally suggested by me, but due to the shallow prize fund, dividing the amount into 3 places ...
Well, the second nomination is also interesting, and it would not be desirable to exclude it, but to make for its definition correct calculation - would be great.
And the summing up should be done in this vein: put the final profit only at the top of the list and that's it! There should be no other accounting parameters. As they say, above profit - only honour. And the distribution of places and prizes should be as follows:
1. 50% - to the one who made the biggest profit;
2. 30% to the one who made slightly less profit;
3. 20% - to the one who made even less profit.
And that's it! No one should care how they made those profits.
I agree.
This was originally suggested by me, but due to the small prize fund, to divide the amount by 3 places...
Well, the second nomination is also interesting, and it would not be desirable to exclude it, but to make a correct calculation for its determination - it would be great.
What matters is, first and foremost, participation. The prize will come sooner or later, in one form or another.
We shouldn't interrupt this undertaking in any way - the contests should be held monthly. Then, the prize fund will fill up, and we'd better specify its limits.
What matters is, first and foremost, participation. The prize will come sooner or later, in one form or another.
Don't let the initiative be terminated -- the contests should be held monthly. And then the prize fund will be filled -- it would be desirable to specify its scope.
Oleg, more about that, please
...
The second nomination is also interesting, and I wouldn't like to exclude it, but it would be great to make a correct calculation for its determination.
For that it is necessary to clearly and unambiguously define goals and tasks of the second nomination. And not vaguely and indefinitely...
However, I think that such a "second nomination" is completely unnecessary.
Oleg, more on this please
I will try to make the following suggestions:
1. At the end of each contest, its results, nuances, winners, strategies used, the fate of the signal and many other things, to publish an article with a fee of $200. And make it the prize fund of the next contest. I'm sure the articles will turn out interesting. We need to get approval of MKL management.
2. Join monthly contests of any DC and compete together with other participants for the total prize fund of the DC.