From theory to practice - page 240
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
I don't understand why it is important for me, for example, to make money and not lose it, while others don't?
That is not how you originally posed the question. Like trying not to give a cent to anyone.
I think losses are an integral and even necessary part of the process. At one of the conferences it was mentioned that most exchanges work with ~50% of successful entries.
That's not how you originally posed the question. Like trying not to give a cent to anyone.
I, on the other hand, consider losses to be an integral and even necessary part of the process. At one of the conferences, it was mentioned that most PBXs work with ~50% of successful entries.
The key point here is most, but how many of them are successful?
That's what I'm getting at, we need to refine it further.
He also said that success is not about good entries at all
Let me explain - a successful entry can be rendered unsuccessful in one moment by a counter-movement of the price against the order
So what is the point of searching for a successful entry and does it even exist?
The key word here is majority, but how many of them are successful?
That's the point I'm trying to make, we need to refine it further.
Also said that success is not about successful entries at all
Well, if they work, then apparently all of them.)
Actually, in business - more costs -> more profit. Or, in other words - more turnover -> more profit.
Didn't understand the latter - only the successful ones determine profit. Net profit is the ratio of successful/unsuccessful.
Zy. For me a successful entry and a successful trade are synonyms.))
Well, if they're working, I guess that's it.)
Actually, in business - more costs -> more profit. Or, in other words - more turnover -> more profit.
Didn't understand the latter - only the successful ones determine profits. The net profit is the ratio of successful/unsuccessful.
Well, I'll tell you honestly - banks now are not taking so much risk, so they charge 48% of dough, not 66%.
That's how they spin these broads, that's how they trade in the financial market
How do they trade?
Exchange, of course.
But they have a commodity whose price you can play with.
And then there's a successful entry...
It's not a successful entry, it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition, 50-50 in short, or even better - as the exchanger says, so it will be.
It's elementary, why am I telling you, the state has already shown...
And here we are, a lucky break...
It's not a successful entry, it's a take-it-or-leave-it situation, 50/50 in short.
It's elementary, why am I telling you...
I recently showed a test in another thread - only 40% of successful entries (trades). Effectiveness of net profit/total profit >60%.
Recently showed a test in another thread - only 40% successful entries (trades). Profit efficiency net/total >60%.
Exactly, that unsuccessful entry, or rather loss should be disproportionate to profit
The tester grails have been shown more than once.
This is the right way; just change the approach, and that's it
It's been shown more than once that the tester grails are in place.
The way is right, just change the approach and that's it.
The test ones are more interesting.)
What do you mean? What for?
Test ones are more interesting.))
What do you mean?
Why?
you need to do your best to make the test and the real one the same, that's why i'm talking about a toy (there's a branch here).
A trader is also a participant in the financial market
Well, so as not to be flushed, at the very least
A trader is also a participant in the financial market
well, at least not to be drained
So far, somehow I haven't been able to).
So far, somehow I haven't been able to.)
thanks to historical data
there's a lot of it.