Criteria for getting signals to the top - page 22
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'm talking about this ***, in fact, as they are merging and accelerating in packs. Survivors look spectacular. You can trade on the signal service, see how all the survivors have snot under 90% and start slowly entering )))). If the author will have 2 under 1000% and 8 losers, I think that the number of subscribers will not be less.
If the author has 2 under 1000% and 8 drained, I don't think there will be less subscribers.
Let's calculate the result if we use a $100 account for each signal from such a provider. I doubt many would risk much more than Provider, although there are some crazy people, who would invest a few thousand dollars each, when Provider's account is $50-100.
So, 2 accounts successfully worked for 3 months and brought $2000 profit to the subscriber.
Now let's estimate the costs: 8 accounts are drained by stop-out, each of them has an average of $10 - a net loss of $720. Also add to the cost of subscription $ 30 and rent VPS $ 10 per month. Surviving accounts account expense will be $ 40 * 2 * 3 = 240, on plum accounts take the average life of 2 months (although plum may occur in the 1st month, and the 3rd), then the expense will be 40 * 8 * 2 = 640 $. Total 720 + 240 + 640 = $1600.
Net profit is 2000-1600 = $400. It would seem to be quite good, but this is the result we got with the amount of $ 1000 for 3 months. Ie, we could easily invest the same thousand in a signal with 15% a month in profit and make 520$ profit. Minus the subscription and VPS rent of $120 for 3 months comes out the same $400 net.
And what is the point in such an attraction with 10 subscriptions, if we are guaranteed to lose 100% of overly aggressive signals during 3-4 months? ;) Isn't it easier to get a stable income on a conservative signal, rather than risk losing all your investment at any time?
Where on the page does it say how much the signal costs?
you've shuffled everything! you won't find anything!
30 bucks ))))
30 bakkie ))))
Why no subscribers? That's a hell of a signal to become a millionaire, by golly. If I hadn't dumped my mini-capital recently, I'd have hooked up by now.
Why are there no subscribers? That's a hell of a signal to become a millionaire, by any stretch of the imagination. If you hadn't dumped that mini-capital recently, you'd be hooked by now.
He's out of the game. Well, that's what I'm talking about. But the bigwigs don't like that. They want 10500 percent profit and no stops.
There's a reason so many traders rise on Pinocchios in the Ramil Hamster. As long as it works, they make dough with a shovel. They are not interested in ethics.
Let's calculate the result if we use a $100 account for each signal from such an ISP. I doubt that many people would risk investing much more than the provider, although there are some unique people, who would invest a few thousand dollars when the provider has $50-100 on their account.
So, 2 accounts successfully worked for 3 months and brought $2000 profit to the subscriber.
Now let's estimate the costs: 8 accounts are drained by stop-out, each of them has an average of $10 - a net loss of $720. Also add to the cost of subscription $ 30 and rent VPS $ 10 per month. Surviving accounts account expense will be $ 40 * 2 * 3 = 240, on plum accounts take the average life of 2 months (although plum may occur in the 1st month, and the 3rd), then the expense will be 40 * 8 * 2 = 640 $. Total 720 + 240 + 640 = $1600.
Net profit is 2000-1600 = $400. It would seem to be quite good, but this is the result we got with the amount of $ 1000 for 3 months. Ie, we could easily invest the same thousand in a signal with 15% a month in profit and make 520$ profit. Minus the subscription and VPS rent of $120 for 3 months comes out the same $400 net.
And what is the point in such an attraction with 10 subscriptions, if we are guaranteed to lose 100% of overly aggressive signals during 3-4 months? ;) Isn't it easier to make a stable income on a conservative signal, rather than risking to lose all your investment at any time?
Of course, it is easier. The point is that the higher the percentage of income on the survivor's account, the less they will look at the number of lost funds. The risk of losing that at small percentage that at high percentage will be taken as 50/50. The funny thing is that as soon as you put somewhere and paid a little money, you do not have it any more, and it does matter whether you get something back. The amount of arithmetic at the stage when you don't have it doesn't matter, it's just a distraction of the mind.
Explain the difference:
The signal is not mine, and it has warnings:
And it is apparently available, it has a rating.
And my signal with warnings:
80% of trades made in 132 days. That's 15% of the signal's total lifetime of 877 days.
And it is inaccessible, there is a space instead of a rating. Why is it so? What is the fundamental difference between 4% and 1% in the first item, or is it that one signal is open and the other is hidden according to some other point/criterion?
Explain the difference:
The signal is not mine, and it has warnings:
And it is apparently available, it has a rating.
And my signal with warnings:
80% of trades made in 132 days. That's 15% of the signal's total lifetime of 877 days.
And it is inaccessible, there is a space instead of a rating. What is the fundamental difference between 4% and 1% in the first item, or is there another point/criterion that makes one signal open and another hidden?
Your signal may be reliable but it is boring, there is no dynamics. Average holding time of 7 days and less than 5% gain per week...
What is the fundamental difference between 4% and 1% on the first point, or on some other point/criterion so it turns out that one signal is open and the other is hidden?
I could be wrong, but most likely the reason is that the account has been in a large drawdown for a long time. If you look at the balance-equity diagram, you can see that the drawdown was kept at 30-50% from January to March and from August to October. Due to high drawdown, the signal was unavailable for subscription for 5-6 months out of 10, during which the signal was registered on mql - apparently, this is the reason why the signal fell out of the rating.
And my warning signal:
80% of the trades made in 132 days. That's 15% of the signal's total lifetime of 877 days.
And it is inaccessible, there is a space instead of a rating. Why is it so? What is the fundamental difference between 4% and 1% in the first item, or is it that one signal is open and the other is hidden according to some other point/criterion?
We look at the number of warnings, if there are a lot of them, even if the rating is the highest - the signal is removed from the storefront.