September registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship is now open - page 27
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
Multiply by the number of trades unnecessary! The number of lots does not solve anything! You can enter with 1 lot, and you can enter with hundreds of lots at 0.01! It is enough to divide equity by maximal drawdown = point
The number of trades, as already noted, plays an important role. When choosing a strategy in signals, PAMMs, strategy tester, for some reason, you always look at the number of deals to avoid a random result. But then again, you can enter with 1 lot and you can also enter with 1 lot but with 100 orders.
in the rules there is a requirement of a minimum number of deals - 10. i suppose that this rule does not work without reference to the lifetime of the position. you can go lucky lot close to the maximum possible and then make an additional 9 transactions to check the box, so provide (can provide) victory as the first nomination, and the second. so can immediately break the input "for luck" at 10 consecutive inputs that formally would observe the letter rules. the probability of a positive outcome of this strategy in the championship tends to zero, but it's still not zero.
But if you add a very simple addition to the rules - minimum lifetime of at least 10 positions is at least 1 hour (for example), and the rest of the positions are allowed at least 1 second or less, then everything falls into place and there is no place. an alternative rule (one of two conditions must be met) - activity level, say, at least 5%.
PS figures are taken from the ceiling, discussion is required.
i believe that this rule does not work without reference to the lifetime of the position. you can go for luck with a lot close to the maximum possible and then make the tick to add 9 deals, so provide (can be provided) victory as the first nomination, and the second. so you can immediately split the input "for luck" at 10 consecutive entrances that formally would observe the letter of the rules. the probability of a positive outcome of such a strategy in the championship tends to zero, but it's still not zero.
But if you add a very simple addition to the rules - the minimum lifetime of at least 10 positions is at least 1 hour (that's for example) and the remaining positions are allowed at least 1 second or less, then everything falls into place and there is no place for it. An alternative rule (a requirement of one of two conditions) is an activity rate of, say, at least 5%.
PS figures are taken from the ceiling, discussion is required.
I strongly disagree with the lifetime of the position. Let it be at least one second for 100 trades.
Perhaps, the correct variant - the maximum lot in the market, then it will exclude the possibility of accidental gains of 10 lots in one trade
I strongly disagree with the lifetime of a position. Let it be 100 trades at least one second at a time.
Probably, the correct variant is maximal lot in the market, then it will exclude possibility of random run-ups with 10 lots in one deal
The problem of determining the random lucky ones is not the size of positions (it's just the MM), but the number of deals taking into account their lifetime.
for example, what is the probability that having opened with the maximum lot at the beginning of the competition, the position will live till the end of the competition? - The probability is practically zero. So, they open a position, wait for the equity to increase by 2-3 times (this is quite possible) and close it.
the problem with identifying random lucky traders is not the size of the positions (that's just the MM), but the number of trades given their lifetime.
For example, what is the probability that the position opened with the maximum lot at the beginning of the contest will survive until the end of the contest? - The probability is practically zero. Therefore, they open a position, wait for the equity to increase by 2-3 times (this is quite possible) and close it.
Opened, price passed in a minute enough to close it. We put a lock and do everything according to the rules, without deviating from them. Thus, there cannot be a plum, and the rules of time frame have been observed.
Open, price has passed in a minute enough to close it. We put a lock and do everything according to the rules without deviating from them. Thus, there can be no loss, and the timing rules are respected.
Yeah... you can bend the rules that way... Yes, it's possible to bypass the rules ... but limiting the lot is not the solution anyway ... you have to think how to properly balance the number of trades -> time to live positions in order to avoid such tricks.
is there any way to detect such intentionally blocked positions in order to bypass the rules?
yes... that's a way to get around the rules... But limiting the lot is not the answer in any case... you have to think how to properly balance the number of trades -> the lifetime of the positions in order to avoid such tricks.
Is there any way to detect such blocked positions in order to bypass rules?
Maybe we can limit the lot, but there are TC that operate on this principle, and this is a violation of trader's rights)
Perhaps it is possible to limit it, but there are TS that operate on such a principle, and this is an infringement of trader's rights)
Well, any rules are an infringement of someone's rights.)
If you want to exclude lucky catchers - then you have to compromise their rights, but what else could it be?
What Sergey Zhanin did on 1000 cents, he would hardly do on 1000 dollars, and he is not the only one.
The problem is a small loss if you do not guess, and a large profit if you do guess. So here the problem is to calculate the quality and reliability of the signal using software.
What Sergey Zhanin did on 1000 cents, he would hardly do on 1000 dollars, and he is not the only one.
The problem is a small loss if you do not guess, and a large profit if you do guess. So here the problem is to calculate the quality and reliability of the signal using software.
No problem. if 98% of profits are made in 2% of all trades - it's luck. maybe not luck, but you have to cut off such "lucky" people, that's the whole calculation.