Mr Martin and his friends - page 10
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
Where's the logic in that?
When the price goes against Martin - it, with that move, gives the trader the very funds needed to maintain Martin (!)
Why do we need an exorbitant deposit?
I can say it again - it all adds up easily. An exorbitant deposit is necessary to ensure the necessary reliability, i.e., the probability of non-failure.
Let's give a concrete example !
What is our probability of a single win (adjusted for equal TP and SL) ? Well, let's say 0.8 - unrealistically high, I want to note.
How many martingale series do we want to win ? Well, let's say 10 (and we will have 10 profit bets at that) - you won't make money on that, but for illustration...
What is our deposit ? Well, let's say 10 bets.
As the result we get that probability of loss for such conditions is 8% - not much, but we have unreal high winning percentage, and very small total profit.
If we take the real probability of a single win (usually around 0.4-0.45), and a normal total profit (well, say, 1000 bets) - the deposit will simply fly up in the sky!
Any strategy has a probability of failure and I would not unequivocally condemn a martin and with stops it is possible to fail quickly in skillful hands )))
Yes no problem you can make the probability of losing negligibly small. The probability of an earthquake of 12 points would be higher !
The only question is the deposit - the owner of a huge deposit is much more reasonable to have bank interest than the misery that a martingale gives with such a low probability of a loss.
martin
there's that drain pin just in the future ))
continuation, but with aggressive trading.
Any strategy has a chance of losing and I would not unequivocally condemn a martin and with stops you can lose quickly in skillful hands )))
this is what a balance chart looks like for a strategy that has 60% correct entries.
this is what a coin flip martin looks like
I can say it again - it all counts easily. An exorbitant deposit is necessary to ensure the necessary reliability, i.e. the probability of non-withdrawal.
Let's give a concrete example !
What is our probability of a single win (adjusted for equal TP and SL) ? Well, let's say 0.8 - unrealistically high, I want to note.
How many martingale series do we want to win ? Well, let's say 10 (and we will have 10 profit bets at that) - we won't make any money on it, but for illustration...
What is our deposit ? Well, let's say 10 bets.
As a result we get that the probability of losing for such conditions is 8% - not much, but we have an unrealistically high winning percentage, and a very small total profit.
If we take the real probability of a single win (usually around 0.4-0.45), and the normal total profit (well, say, 1000 bets) - the deposit will simply fly sky high !
But why do you stubbornly exclude from your calculations the profit obtained when the price moves in an unprofitable direction for Martin...?
What's wrong with that?
But why do you stubbornly exclude from your calculations the profit made on a price movement in the unprofitable direction for Martin...?
What's wrong with that?
He bases his reasoning on the classical martingale. He does not consider other variants to be martingale. Your variant does not fit the classical scheme.
Exactly.
Placing a locking order is equivalent to closing a losing position early. In addition, there can be all sorts of cunning lot manipulation. Plus, there can be additional placing of orders on strongly correlated pairs.
Only it's no longer a martingale !
oh. and this one's at it again ))
He got booted in the coin thread, he went silent. He's resurrected.In the coin thread I only disagreed with my opponent on one thing - the alleged desire of the outcome graph to return to zero line, as no one has been able to explain how the coin can know WHERE that very line is... and WHERE, relative to it, the graph is at the moment
. The infinity reference doesn't work either, since trying to summarise intermediate results at any point in an "infinite" series will always only yield results on the END array of raw data (from the start of the series to the point of measurement). And it is not correct to draw conclusions about infinity, from this result.
In the second part of the argument (about the probability of falling out of this or that series) - we simply said the same thing in different words: falling out of any series is EQUALLY probable. But, the opponents were unwilling to agree that in that case the series chart may well never return to the horizontal zero line
And so, I then simply focused on the sea air and sunshine, ... with wishes for the same to everyone else
... and the topic went "off the front page"
And you are "silenced"...
All his reasoning is relative to classical martingale. He does not consider the other options to be martingale. Your option does not fit into the classic scheme.
So, in a classic Martin, it's unladylike to take money from a price reversal...?
Like, with classic Martin, it's unladylike to take money off the back of the price...?
No, it's just that the technique isn't called "martingale" anymore.
And all this talk about "martingale price reversal" is equivalent to millionaires talking about how they made a million by finding an apple, washing it, and selling it, buying two apples, and selling it... and so on. The only strange thing is that the market apple sellers - they sell much more, and they are far away from a million-dollar fortune... Ah, yes, the millionaire forgot to mention one little thing that the apple sellers don't have...
It's the same here... People talk about "martingale", although they use quite different techniques, and that's what they make money on.