The most banal trading strategy - page 8
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
OK, write the pairs, even without a positive swap, I will send you the results from the tester.
I don't need a tester. I have MathCAD :-)
However, since the quality of theoreticians here is below the redline, I also want to inform, that Z is GBPUSD. Since, obviously, a GBPUSD pips is times more expensive than a dollar pips, and EURGBP delta is calculated in pips of the pound as the quoted currency.
So: GBPUSD*delta(EURGBP) = X*delta(EURUSD) - Y*delta(GBPUSD).
You can pick up the X and Y coefficients in your tester, if you don't feel like writing on paper with a pencil.
I don't need a tester. I have MathCAD :-)
However, since the quality of theoreticians in this branch is below the redline, I'd like to inform you that Z is GBPUSD. Since, obviously, a GBPUSD pips is times more expensive than a dollar pips, and EURGBP delta is calculated in pips of the pound as the quoted currency.
So: GBPUSD*delta(EURGBP) = X*delta(EURUSD) - Y*delta(GBPUSD).
You can pick up the X and Y coefficients in your tester, if you don't want to write on paper with a pencil.
These and your other calculations and conclusions are not worth a damn.
You are neither a physics student, nor a mechmate.
Nevertheless, your explanations are clear to everyone.
But what do they have to do with trading in positive swaps?
It is impossible to make a ring of five pairs where we will make a total profit on the swap.
Boris Gulikov:
It is impossible to put together a ring of five pairs where we will collectively make a profit on the swap.For you personally it is impossible to make a ring (with negative total swap, of course) out of three pairs (triangle) EURUSD, GBPUSD, EIRGBP, because you cannot specify X and Y values.
You haven't drawn any conclusions from the place where I poked you that if you state categorically that something is "impossible" like that, then it's almost certainly a fallacy :-)
P.S. ... many of the greatest scientists of the nineteenth century ... rushed to declare almost every unknown technology fundamentally impossible. Lord Kelvin, perhaps the most eminent physicist of the Victorian era (he is buried in Westminster Abbey beside Isaac Newton), confidently declared that "heavier than air" aircraft, such as aeroplanes, would never fly. He believed X-rays were a hoax and was convinced that radio had no future. Lord Rutherford, the discoverer of the atomic nucleus, denied the possibility of an atomic bomb and compared any such endeavour to "chasing the sun bunny". 19th century chemists declared the quest for the philosopher's stone, the legendary substance that could turn lead into gold, a scientific dead end. Nineteenth century chemistry was based on the fundamental principle that chemical elements, including lead, remained the same. But today we can, in principle, turn lead atoms into gold atoms with a powerful accelerator. Closer to our times we can give other examples. ... Einstein himself wrote a paper in 1939 in which he "proved" that black holes could not arise in the natural world. But the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-ray Telescope have already discovered thousands of black holes in space ... Funnily enough, metamaterials were also once thought impossible to exist because they violate the laws of optics ... "The Physics of the Impossible". (c) Michio KakuThese and your other calculations and conclusions are not worth a damn.
You are neither a physicist nor a mechmate.
Nevertheless, your explanations are clear to everyone.
But what do they have to do with trading in positive swaps?
It is impossible to make a ring of five pairs where we will make a profit on a swap.
Don't waste your time, you can never argue with theorists.
I said I was a physicist. But I am not a theoretical physicist.
e.g. buy on EURGBP via buy EURUSD and sell GBPUSD
Do you consider this a ring?
Don't waste your time, you can never argue with theorists
And why are you snapping at the theorists? Normal theorists start from practice.
Normal theorists proceed from practice.
They don't. Theory is good because it can predict, guide practice. For example, you predicted the existence of the positron on the tip of a pen - and there it is, in the experiment (later, later). And so on. You predicted the spectrum of states of the antihydrogen atom - and voila - then, later, you could observe it. And so on.