thread: Martingale... How to make it WORK for YOU!

Hanover....your are a wise mofo...I love your coding, you have help me learn MQL. . .WAY FUCKING BETTER then steve *cough cough* whats his SN's remainder. . .you get shit....if you run the numbers in what I call dummy mode

I'd be happy to work on a programming job, but only when somebody can disprove mathematically exactly what I currently believe to be authentic. My view is that MM can not give an edge.

I've posted different XLSs before, similar to the attached, which compute expectancy for every single possible combination of wins and losses over X trades, using different'progressive' MM approaches: martingale, anti-martingale, d'Alembert, Labouchere, Guetting, Oscar's Grind, Fibonacci, flat betting. Assuming a random distribution of wins and losses, it doesn't matter which of these MMs you use: each one redistributes reduction and triumph sizes differently, but delivers a expectancy of zero. In plain English, that means that, everything else being equal, the will be, eventually delivered by all MMs, if exchanged for long enough, and provided that they avoid ruin.

Having said that, there are two provisos:

1. The above assumes that each trade is an event that is independent; which each of the 64 possible outcomes is likely. If there's some amount of correlation between trade results (e.g. a triumph is much more inclined than 50/50 to be followed by another triumph; or a reduction is much more inclined than 50/50 to be followed by a win), then this is no longer correct. But the win/loss patterns rely on the trading system (entries/exits), and I'd need to view formal statistical evidence.

2. By putting higher position sizes on winning trades, an advantage can be created or enhanced. But this presupposes that you know beforehand that trades are more likely to be winners, more compared to many others. (For instance, if installation A delivers a greater expectancy/profit factor than installation B, then you'd be justified in risking longer on position A). But again, this depends on the trading system, and I'd need to see evidence. Plus it means that B and A would need to be demonstrated expectancy setups, to justify trading them. To put it differently, you need an edge to begin with: ch-22.

Simply raising position size to recoup recent losses doesn't have mathematical basis, because market behaviour and probabilities aren't likely to changeout of empathy for just one retail trader's P/L. Therefore, if you're likely to typical down your losing trades, you require statistical evidence that price is much more prone than 50/50 to revert into an average, i.e. that each step on your'grid' is far more likely to succeed compared to the preceding one, to justify a rise in position dimensions, that is commensurate with the improved likelihood. To put it differently, the same logic as in stage 2. And assuming you would like to avoid irretrievable drawdown, then you also should factor in a means of handling risk in a potential'worst case' situation (the topic of my previous posts).

David
https://www.cliqforex.com/attachment...1849897175.xls

Shake them haters off! LOL
Inserted Video

Martingale is only going to buy you time. . Until it clears u out. Lookup mgrid its a smarter grid thought but same matter. Buys you time at the expense of slower steadier expansion prior to the bust...

As said only method you can beat it is by somehow improving risk reward etc like going for a risk 1 reward 4 entrance inside precisely the exact same setup as regular and doing it frequently winnig as many times as you would normally. But that defeats purpose of using a lot of risk to gain little all the other times...

An edge is the edge and I come back full circle once I ask myself but why not? Im sure I can win the majority of the time without losing streaks that are large. Actually its constantly disproven by the market!

Why don't you await a hh or ll then applying some favourable risk reward into a trade? Say a 16 to 1 and see that your system will last a long time where as before you would lose one unit now you lose 37,, but will have 16 declines in a row.

Your pro is that you get 1 unit as opposed to 16 when you drive a triumph...

Sometimes stretching the odds brings the border cases to light.

True story I made a scalper doubled your account every month. A handful of losses that are historic. I employed mgale to it and went live. First week it warms up!! Market is always going after your sl. . So you play you've got hope your trade will survive and when others get thrashed.


Thats where this forum is useful to see wherenthe pain threshold is... Before I started Foreign Exchange I went to a demonstration
and started making random trades saw how simple it was to create a hundred. Went live with same mentalitly and a small amount and noticed from once you input game is rigged. My sl was shut and always hit without entering 1 pip profit. Noticed on tick chart during slow times after that when I put a sozed order of say 5 lots I visit price tick opposite direction. Your order is hedged.

I created profits when I played over the course of a slaughter or higher volatility. . Market saw more pain than my profit so that it gives me a hall pass... You get sufficient hall passes and you will hit home runs... This is what I mean
by improving risk reward. You backtest it because market is dynamic.

Everyone that is posting is not even taking the opportunity to read the entire THREAD or even do the math....

Trading is easy, OVER THINKING is HARD


**EDIT** Properly a few....but most don't. . .they like to be the fools of all FF....lol