Where did the top 1 signal go? (I won't name it so as not to advertise it) - 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
Maybe, MQL administration should reconsider their policy concerning signals rating? I would like to avoid the effect of a crowd of people that would subscribe to the top 1 even without looking at the statistics.
For a long time, it is necessary to do something, up to the point when before subscribing one has to look through 100 signals by different criteria, or, alternatively, to split the rating:
- Low risk >>(show 20 top) >>> watch all in that category
- Medium risk >> (show top 20) >>> see all in this category
- High Risk >> (show top 20) >>> watch all in this category
- Signals by Number of Subscribers >> (show top 20) >>> watch all in this category
Such measures will help all ...
Maybe, MQL administration should reconsider their policy concerning signals rating? So there won't be a crowd effect that subscribes to the top 1 even without looking at the stats.
You don't have to decide anything for people, it's their choice and decision, why should they be deprived of this right?
You don't have to decide for people, it is their choice and decision, why should they be deprived of that right?
If you ask people whether they should pay taxes, people will say no, but that does not mean it is right, you often have to decide for people.
If you ask people whether they should pay taxes, people will say no, but that does not mean it is right, you often have to decide for people.
There opinion is either amateurish or liberal. Wherever there is more than one entity, there will be a conflict of interest, which can't be solved in any way except by the balanced introduction of bans. People don't realise that the crowd effect causes a kind of monopoly of one seller, which automatically violates the rights of competitors.
And liberals or dilettantes think that if everything is allowed, everything will be solved.
Besides, no one is depriving the right to decide, it remains anyway. It is just that the "range" of choices can be modified to protect the rights of both.
There's either a layman's opinion or a liberal's opinion there. Wherever there is more than one entity, there will be a conflict of interest, which can't be solved by anything other than the balanced imposition of bans. People don't realise that the crowd effect causes a kind of monopoly of one seller, which automatically violates the rights of competitors.
And liberals or dilettantes think that if everything is allowed, everything will be solved.
Besides, no one is depriving the right to decide, it remains in any case. It is just that the "range" of choices can be modified to protect the rights of both.
Yes, that sounds better.
Long time, something should be done, up to and including forcing an investor to look at 100 signals by different criteria before subscribing, or as an option split the ranking:
- Low risk >>(show 20 top) >>> watch everyone in that category
- Medium risk >> (show top 20) >>> see all in this category
- High Risk >> (show top 20) >>> watch all in this category
- Signals by Number of Subscribers >> (show top 20) >>> watch all in this category
Such measures will help all ...
And again, all these indicators show CALM ... even its 45% drawdown does not let it down from the first place ... just got out of it and already in first place in all the buttons ... the feeling that the entire rating was adjusted for its signal
And again, all these indicators show CALM ... even its 45% drawdown does not let it down from the first place ... just got out of it and already in first place in all the buttons ... the feeling that the entire rating was adjusted for its signal