Need your advice on which signal to choose for subscription. - page 13
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've been waiting for you).
About the other things we have already said above: the provider has his opinion, the subscriber his. Combine adequately, both opinions, and you get a sample of signals.
If a signal provider has several accounts - even better. Let's select the one or ones that are suitable. But there won't be a big difference in accounts, if the signalman can't sing or does it "unsure" ;)
And if you look at our filter item by item, equity is not the most important, although it certainly matters.If the signal trader has several signals and there is no fundamental difference in trading schemes (all are pipsing or similar grids and so on...)
then you should discard such a signal. If there is more than one robot that trades similar things, a normal trader would use the one that has less risk. For example, one robot may be a trend robot with daily turnover of 1-2 trades and another one a grid on a different symbol. But there should not be any similar ones
I think we'll leave $500 as the minimum threshold. And include it in our filter.
But the "truth" will be somewhere in the region of $1500+, my opinion. Personally, what matters to me is whether the trader is making money for himself with his trading, even if it's not his main income. Not creating beautiful equities for subscriptions...
If a signaler has several signals and there is no fundamental difference in trading schemes (everyone is pipsing or has similar grids everywhere and so on...)
then you should discard such a robot. If there is more than one robot that trades similar things, a normal trader would use the one that has less risk. For example, one robot may be a trend robot with daily turnover of 1-2 trades and another one a grid on a different symbol. But there should not be similar ones.
I agree completely)
P.S. We will not evaluate the signals and we will not choose, promote anyone, etc. Our task is to provide an adequate filter. Which can really help everyone to decide on their choice.
What is the point of paying more for a signal than it is valued by the ISP itself?
The provider knows that his signal is not worth a penny and we will pay a lot for it because our filter thinks it is "good"?
What's the point of paying more for a signal than it's valued by the provider?
The provider knows that his signal is not worth a penny and we will pay a lot of money for it because our filter thinks it is "good"?
Look,we have a proposal - signals.
We want to choose and create a filter (which, by the way, is not a truth in the last instance or a guide to action). In other words,we are the demand.
Do you understand?
Separately, we don't look at the opinion of the provider and the subscriber. We look at the facts, which are very important. The provider may underestimate the signal personally and the subscriber may overestimate it. For different reasons.
All suggestions are welcome, and those who haven't already spoken are welcome!
I'm sure there's something we've missed and left out)
Separately, we do not look at the opinion of the provider and the subscriber. We look at the facts, which are very important. The provider may underestimate the signal personally and the subscriber may overestimate it. For different reasons.
Well, if the provider "underestimates" the signal, then yes, you should probably look at the facts.
Can you point the finger at a single signal that the ISP has "underestimated"? In my opinion, I've seen only the opposite everywhere, overestimating signals, when they want $30 per month for ordinary martin, which is freely lying in KodoBase... But to be "undervalued"... I would like to see at least one...
Well, if the ISP is "underestimating" the signal, then yes, you should probably look at the facts.
Can you point the finger at at least one signal which the provider has "undervalued"? In my opinion, I've seen only the opposite everywhere, overestimating signals, when they want $30 per month for an ordinary martin, which lies freely in KodoBase... But to be "undervalued"... I would like to see at least one...
Well, if the ISP "underestimates" the signal - then, yes, we should probably look at the facts.
Can you point the finger at a single signal that the ISP has "underestimated"? In my opinion, I've seen only the opposite everywhere, overestimating signals, when they want $30 per month for ordinary martin, which is freely lying in KodoBase... But to be "undervalued"... I would like to see at least one...
Understand the point.
When evaluating something, especially whereyou are being asked to pay, you need to look at the facts and put emotion aside. The filter allows and helps even those who think they are experienced to do so.
We have no choice about what price to charge for the signal - the provider sets it and it is his subjective opinion.
Our opportunity and what we can do is to CHOOSE whether to pay or not, to subscribe or not.
And we do not look at "whether we like or dislike the picture, what the provider thinks about himself or his signal...". - we're looking at the facts, the bare facts.
You've never signed up anyway and you never will, yours isn't either. Why would you want to do that?
Apart from what I have already told you above, I would like to add:
Personally, I've discovered a lot and I'm sure I will continue to do so. And when looking for options on how to "spread out my risk in order to reduce the importance and significance of each individual element", I will be guided by something that we all create together - the filter.