Mr Martin and his friends - page 5

New comment
 
khorosh:
Some people complain that the soup is liquid, while others complain that the diamonds are small).

That's what I mean... to each his own.)

 
khorosh: Some complain that the soup is liquid, and some complain that the diamonds are small).

and some have little room for money

 
STARIJ:

and some people don't have much room for money

History knows of only one such case

  • The drug lord's son, Sebastian Marroquin, said that one day, once again hiding from government agents, Escobar found himself with his son and daughter in a high mountain shelter. It was an extremely cold night, and while trying to keep his daughter warm and cook food, Escobar burned about $2 million in cash.
 
George Merts:

Shit...

How many times do I have to tell you - a martin, if it doesn't lose, requires a huge deposit, and as a result the profit percentage becomes miserable.

If the profit on a martin is normal, then the probability of losing is even palpable.

The only possibility to have a good profit and not to fail is to make so many changes to the martin that it will cease to be a martin long time ago. Let's say, how do you like this "martin" - set such a lot that you can lose only one percent of the deposit. If we suffer a loss - we increase TP, and again we put one percent of the deposit at risk, and again, with each loss - we increase TP, so it covers all our losses. It is clear that such a system - will never lose (and it is very doubtful that it will work) - but it's also called a "martin".

And that's where you are wrong. No gross - a martin requires a precisely calculated deposit and periodic withdrawals/replenishments. Illustration on a very classic martin: trading conditions - leverage 1:100, min lot 0.01, max lot 100, you can calculate at your leisure = for a cent account will be about 15000 cents when trading in one position, 30000 cents for lots or simultaneous two positions (depends on stops - can give or take). Smaller depot will not allow you to use martin on full, larger will either dramatically complicate the algorithms (open 2 transactions of 100 lots with min.delay and slippage), or leave part of the deposit "lying dead weight". Is $150 and $300 a "hulk" ? Although I understand, 15%/mo of $ 150 does not cover the overhead ... you have to do round robin, choose DC on technical requirements, not just "wants".

Well, of course you will have to monitor the market and from time to time to give instructions - to withdraw money from the account / deposit it in addition to include / disable martin. That is, martin, it's not quite a grail, it does not allow you to include a robot and go into a binge for a couple of years to return to the Forbes list already :-)

 
Maxim Kuznetsov:

And that's where you're wrong. No huge - martin requires a precisely calculated deposit and periodic withdrawals/replenishments. Illustration on a very classic martin: trading conditions - leverage 1:100, min lot 0.01, max lot 100, you can calculate at your leisure = for a cent account will be about 15000 cents when trading in one position, 30000 cents for lots or simultaneous two positions (depends on stops - can give or take). Smaller depot will not allow you to use martin on full, larger will either dramatically complicate the algorithms (open 2 transactions of 100 lots with min.delay and slippage), or leave part of the deposit "lying dead weight". Is $150 and $300 a "hulk" ? Although I understand, 15%/mo of $ 150 does not cover the overhead ... you have to do round robin, choose DC on technical requirements, not just "wants".

Well, of course you will have to monitor the market and from time to time to give instructions - to withdraw money from the account / deposit it in addition to include / disable martin. That is, martin, it's not quite a grail, it does not allow you to include a robot and go into a binge for a couple of years to return to the Forbes list :-)


Thank you, good answer for me.

 
It turns out that Martin is convenient for some and harmful for others. Everyone decides how to be
 
STARIJ:
It turns out that some people find Martin convenient, some people find it harmful. Everyone decides what to do

Martin - it's just a way of money management, which 1) is well worked out by mathematics, just up and down 2) allows you to work with balance targets 3) is probably the only method of using strategies with expectation 51-55 for mere mortals

I'm not saying it's good or bad - it's just there and you need to know how to use it.

PS/ by the way the fashionable lot(or risk)=% of eqi (balance/savings) is much riskier. A thing that is guaranteed to lead to a loss.

 
Maxim Kuznetsov:

PS/ by the way the fashionable lot(or risk)=%% of the equity (balance/savings) is much riskier. A thing that is guaranteed to lead to a loss


I always calculate that way, why to the drain?

 
Mickey Moose:

I always calculate that way, why to the downside?

Because it's a martingale :-) only calculated towards 0... you hold out for a constant "until ruin" - and it comes sooner or later
 
Maxim Kuznetsov:
Because it's a martingale :-) only calculated towards 0... you're holding out for a constant "until ruin" - and it comes sooner or later

I don't understand, are we counting either martingale or lot calculated by %

or both?

12345678910111213
New comment