- Search Forex Factory
- 43 Results (2 Threads, 41 Replies)
- tacticat replied Aug 29, 2014
Yes, you're right. Simple math... for a simple martingale that I don't think anybody uses. Martingala lovers (mostly using EAs) use currently very different martingala techniques, all sharing the increase-risk-when-losing but adding trailings, ...
- tacticat replied Aug 29, 2014
Sorry, I fail to see how you can prove that. Unless you refer to very simple martingale techniques. Look at this: image These are the equity evolution of two systems. operating quite frequently on 32 pairs. - 1st one (red) is a system whose entry ...
- tacticat replied Aug 28, 2014
What would that prove? I can provide you not one but any number of martingales that would run for 10 years in a symbol and have spectacular results. And, to be honest, I would recommend you NOT to run that EA with money. Curiously martingales are ...
- tacticat replied Aug 28, 2014
100% agreed. Full disagreement there , there are many kinds of martingales, and multi-martingales and some of them don't need a good entry signal. A martingale can have the edge on other aspects of the trading. I would define a Martingale as any ...
- tacticat replied Aug 28, 2014
There may be a variety of reasons. And those using martingales should be based on them. Obviously you see no 'valid' reason and then it's clear you should not use martingales. That's too basic an MM for running a martingale. To be profitable with a ...
- tacticat replied Aug 28, 2014
I read it. But I think it makes little sense in the trading context, your assertions there: a) The martingale is based in the false believe that losing increases the chance of winning. Martingales are not based on that. Bad, blind martingales maybe. ...
- tacticat replied Aug 28, 2014
Pity, I really think that discussions are the reason we're here in the forum. I understand why some people have problems with Martingales: they are so easy to create, code and operate! And they usually give those beautiful results for some time... ...
- tacticat replied Aug 18, 2014
You are probably right, and that's the main reason I'm only trading martingales in demo accounts right now. But I'd say the same will apply to all systems, auto or manual, dumb martingaling or based on a thousand indicators, no? Any way every system ...
- tacticat replied Aug 17, 2014
My code. I'm not a trader, have no trading experience. I have friends in the trading business and I'd like to verify the myths out there: martingales don't work, sure? But to be honest, I tried a similar setup with a commercial martingale, and ...
- tacticat replied Aug 17, 2014
[quote=Magix;7680035] Looks very nice, tac. [quote] But it's only martingales... and there is not yet enough data to determine if it's worth to run with real money. I've run only 2 times with real money just to verify the differences with demo in 2 ...
- tacticat replied Aug 17, 2014
And that's the reason I want to run many instrument and in both directions and in different levels. I need to 'stabilize' the combined outcome. With a short-period cycle of a month it's usually the opposite! When I see the equity going down I see ...
- tacticat replied Aug 17, 2014
My setup: - One single EA (on single chart). I don't like to have a lot of charts and EAs running. - Operating in 32 pairs with that EA (28 currency+2 gold +2 silver). The more the better, I've tried also with indexes, up to 42 instruments at the ...
- tacticat replied Aug 17, 2014
I've seen the data, but does not satisfy me (even if it shows impressive results!). My gut feeling is that 6 or 10 martingales are better than one, but still too slow to reach the target. I need to be able to stop in 3-5 weeks, no more, in order to ...
- tacticat replied Aug 17, 2014
Can we go back to martingales? I assume everybody agrees a simple martingale is bad business. Maybe some of you are trading with refined martingales and are they profitable? All flavours I've tried are bad, commercial or not, and the biggest problem ...
- tacticat replied Aug 17, 2014
All trading is gambling, isn't it? Good traders only gamble when the game has a positive expectancy. You have proved that that simple martingale has negative expectancy, (no need of proof, it was obvious). My experience is that simple martingales ...
- tacticat replied Aug 17, 2014
Martingales are, IMHO, just one of the possibilities to trade. The nice thing is that they are usually easy to automatize with an EA. About the success expectancy? If the markets were completely random it is easy to demonstrate that a simple ...
- tacticat replied Aug 15, 2014
Trading is not for the average person! I know some traders are successful to the extent of making a decent living of it. They are not average, sure. There probably exist some traders that become very rich with their trading, I don't know them but I ...
- tacticat replied Aug 15, 2014
Sorry, you're right. Bad luck my friend Well, that happens with some systems, right?. A well-behaved system shouldn't have that problem as it's coded 'safely' to avoid that type of problems. The systems I code are difficult to backtest, in fact ...
- tacticat replied Aug 15, 2014
And??? You have a good, profitable, system? Congratulations. Better than mine? No wonder, my systems are not clearly positive. jgcole83, what's your point? t.
- tacticat replied Aug 15, 2014
It's really difficult to demonstrate that a 'well-behaved-system' cannot exist. I give you that creating an EA that is positive is easier than creating an EA that is positive AND is 'well-behaved'. I have right now several possible candidates, ...