From theory to practice - page 1760
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
Can you demonstrate this on the stock exchange, at least on the MICEX demo circuit?
I'm just curious that even if 100 orders are opened the loss is practically zero... a maximum of $10-15... and the profit is many times greater than the maximum drawdown.
As a matter of fact, my robot is the same as my robot's. I don't know why I'm taking such a big profit.
My robot pushes orders so fast that I don't even know how it earns money. My robot is making money so fast I don't even know what it's doing.
I just know that market noise is the centre of attraction. That's all. Maybe you can give me a hint?
I want to make the system more efficient by understanding the principle and not to have 10-20 orders, but only two buy and sell=)
I want to change the system efficiently, not to have 10-20 orders, but always two buy and sell.
this is an intimate issue, because only you know the details of the strategy.
whatever the strategy is, i only know one thing
it should work like this:
I mean, they don't charge for monitoring here, and screenshots are kind of frivolous. It's a bit ridiculous to claim through a post that I've been screwing around with everyone there. In fact, five of the regulars in this thread have no monitoring
The only proof is a pamm or a signal or monitoring.
All the rest is just drawing pictures from forum talkers.
why is that?
probably all graalists go to the forum and plummers go to open signals... I guess so...
the only proof is a pamm or signal or monitoring.
Everything else is just drawing pictures from the forum blabbermouths.
Whatever the strategy, I only know one thing.
should work like this:
Equity can be higher than balance when there is a dummy close with a counter order, but without removing them. In other words, we should look at what is less, equity or balance - it shows real profit, not equity or balance... Or, we should add all opposite orders beforehand and the uncompensated balance will show the real profit.
The fact that monitoring sometimes shows balance or only equity - it is of course illiterate, it shows that they do not know about hanging counter orders, which can be used to draw anything.
Better to go straight to an MT5 net account, there will only be 1 (order) position. Spread is saved a lot with so many orders.
Equity may be higher than balance when there is a fictitious closing with a counter order, but without removing them. So, we have to look at what is smaller, the equity or the balance - it shows the real profit and not the equity or the balance. Or, we should add all counter orders beforehand and the uncompensated balance will show the real profit.
The fact that monitoring sometimes shows balance or only equity - this is of course illiteracy, it shows that they do not know about the dangling counter orders that can draw anything.
It usually looks like this)) I copied it from some signal for clarity. Stubborn guy).
Swaps gobbled up 30,000 profit).
Renat may have the same thing.
It usually looks like this)) I copied it from some signal for clarity. Stubborn guy.)
Swaps gobbled up 30,000 profits).
Renat might do the same.