Experiment - page 66
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
They're bidding against him until he gives up the dough and that's it.
How do you break that? - ♪ dunno ♪
People can't understand that it's not the indicator that rules, it's the price♪ who's the bidding? ♪
Who is driving?
Who doesn't want to lose their market, who pays for equipment, communication channels, personnel?
because implicitly, but it's the customer who pays.
Who does not want to lose their market, who pays for equipment, communication channels, personnel, and so on?
"well and anyway, let's say there is one player in the market" (c) - there is one player in the market.
Who is "driving the price against him"?
"well and anyway, let's say there is one player in the market" (c) - there is one player in the market.
Who "drives the price against him"?
There can't be only one participant in the transaction.
Who then did he sell to or buy from? From himself?
There can't be only one party to the transaction.
Who did he then sell to or buy from? From himself?
Well, I didn't set the terms of the problem.
That's why I'm clarifying.
There can't be only one party to the transaction.
Who did he then sell to or buy from? From himself?
Let's say there is no one.
who opened the deal first is alone
e.g. a TS with a bunch of orders on his NSPin principle yes
Forex won't break even if there are at least two participants
i gave you an example, in numbers
either one or both of the two deal participants will lose
well in general, let's say there's one in the market
they drive the price against him until he gives up the dough and bam!
how do you break that? - No way.
people can't understand that it's not the indicator that rules, but the priceThe market is already broken, for those who already drive the price from level to level,
they are scammers, they live everywhere on any instrument and on any market
and for us breaking the market is a different concept,
it's constantly taking a bite out of the pie with the scammers, which is enough
99.999% of people do not understand what makes the market move and exist,
They think that if there is a market, they can earn, and from that moment they are doomed to failure.
And how many Expert Advisors are flailing in the air, it's like waving their fists in the air,
so many trades are spun just to get the equity above zero,
that in the end the market algorithm always wins.
But you can make it so that you can trade everywhere,
whether trending or flat! absolutely the same)
and no MM is opposed after that!!!
The market is already broken, for those who are already driving the price from level to level,
they're scammers, they live everywhere on any instrument and on any market.
and for us, breaking the market is a different concept,
it's constantly taking a bite out of the pie with the scammers, which is enough
99.999% of people do not understand what makes the market move and exist,
They think that once they have a market, they can earn, and from that moment they are doomed to failure.
And how many Expert Advisors are flailing in the air, it's like waving their fists in the air,
so many trades are spun just to get the equity above zero,
that in the end the market algorithm always wins.
But you can make it so that you can trade everywhere ,
whether trending or flat! absolutely the same)
and no MM is opposed after that!!!
the first black - yes
it may be a good solution to trader's problems, but we cannot trade black!
And while we're at it, here we go.
P.N.B. is a trend-following chip.
the forex will break it down without a care in the worldfirst black - yes
Second - this is what we need a clear signal, which combines a flat and a trend into one strategy, and never lets the first black drain
And while we're at it, here we go.
PNB is a trend-following chip.
theforex will break it down without a care in the worldPST is a science fiction, it's not adapted to the market,
the market has other clear and simple rules, the purpose of the market is to give = 1 and take away = 1, so any chip will not survive in this environment if the frequency of taking away is longer
market rules are clear, there is a logical chain between a trend and a flat
The complexity is in the programming, I do not know how advanced the mql language is nowadays
to teach the computer to build orders in both directions (X and Y) not according to the indicator!!!!, in principle I think it is possible.
PNB is a near-scientific wagon, not adapted to the market in any way,
the market has other clear simple rules, the purpose of the market is to give =1 and take away =1, and therefore any thing will not survive in such an environment if the frequency of taking away lasts longer
market rules are clear, there is a logical chain between a trend and a flat
The complexity is in the programming, I do not know how advanced the mql language is nowadays
to teach the computer to build orders in both directions (X and Y) not according to the indicator!!!!, in principle I think it's possible.
hmm ;)
you are next to the first part
mql help, everything will work out
is the most difficult part of the grail.