Q&A about my free indicators in Platform Tech......

Indeed, and he knows exactly what he s doing.

With respect, you're merely repeating yourself. I've already answered your points, both in post #1 and here. Given the way that the internet works, there's nothing I could post that you couldn't say was somehow faked. Even if I was to close the account and wire you the money, you could simply say that I got it from elsewhere. Skeptics will always find a way to discount whatever evidence is presented, hence there's no point in continuing this discussion. Having said that, I respect your position about campaigning for greater transparency and regulation in retail FX, and understand why you feel the way that you do.

Indeed I do. But I've read a lot of your posts, and they lead me to the conclusion that it's not what you’re thinking.

I will use this thread as a dump spot for future posts, as posts in the Commercial Section and Recycle Bin are less conspicuous........

Broker statistics

Unfortunately broker statistics (like this) prove little either way. A snapshot showing that 25% (or whatever) of accounts are profitable at a given point in time is effectively meaningless, for several possible reasons:

1. 25% profitable now doesn't tell us how many of these accounts will ultimately survive the test of time. Or conversely, there's no data on how long each of these accounts has already sustained its profitability.

2. Even if it shows that 25% are profitable now, and 25% were profitable 12 months ago, it doesn't tell us how many of this number were the same traders. (For example, if 25 traders are profitable now, while 75 are on their way to failure and quitting; and the same 25 traders are profitable 12 months from now, while meanwhile a new set of 75 recruits are facing failure, etc etc, then the number of winners remains 25, while the number of failures is 75+75+75+75+......)

3. The snapshot doesn't tell us how many of these accounts are being propped up by some form of unsustainable MM, e.g. a martingale that hasn't imploded yet, or a grid reversal system that has yet to encounter a runaway 'trend'.

4. Most importantly, it can't tell us how many of the 25% are profitable systematically due to a genuine 'edge' arising from trader proficiency (assuming that's possible); and how many are due to nothing more than statistical distribution (or more colloquially, "luck"). In every random distribution there will always be statistical outliers — if you have a million people tossing a fair coin repeatedly, a few of them will toss an extraordinary number of heads — or viewing this from another angle, (good or bad) luck can persist over a surprisingly vast number of trades (explained well here by alphaomega).

Hence the discussion in threads like this one is effectively pointless, for the following reason(s). People (including me) who believe that knowledge and skill can provide an 'edge' capable of beating costs will naturally assert that systematically profitable trading is possible, and that proof requires finding only one trader who fits this category (and there's enough liquidity to allow his strategy to be emulated without upsetting the flow of market). Conversely, naysayers tend to fall into two groups: those who argue that the markets are unconquerable due to unfair manipulation, and then there are those who put trader failure down to markets being a totally random walk, or near-perfectly efficient. Post a profitable track record, and naysayers inevitably respond that it's either been faked (any graphic uploaded to the internet can first be faked using image manipulation software), is demo, or is the result of blind luck (it's possible that even a consistently profit over several years could be the result of chance, just like a lottery winner) hence there's no easy way of proving them wrong. Parties in both camps tend to defend their views with religious-like zeal and obstinacy, but fail to recognize that neither position (proficiency or 'luck') is quantifiably provable.

However, the bottom line is that if you're comfortable with your strategy, and satisfied with the results, then keep on banking your profits; you don't have to prove anything to anybody. Or conversely, if you think trading is an impossible game for suckers, then nothing you say will change the minds of those who are currently profiting by whatever means, so you might as well simply close your account and move on to something more constructive.

Completely agree on above..Im a real beginner and till now only a student of fx trading..but still working as risk engineer by 25 years..enough to have had some good connections with numbers and statistics...

Indicators and repainting

I guess this should be obvious, but TA can work only with past data. It can't possibly know the future with certainty. Hence if an indicator is repeatedly signaling local turning points with uncanny accuracy, it MUST be repainting.

To explain this with an example, suppose a candle creates a new low, and an indicator plots an upward arrow (buy signal). Now if the indicator is going to continue signaling lows with perfect accuracy, and the next candle happens to be an even lower low, it MUST erase the previous arrow and plot a new one. To avoid this repainting, it would need to know in advance whether the NEXT candle(s) will be lower or not, a logistical impossibility.

Price movement is caused by bullish or bearish sentiment, which is constantly in a state of flux, as changing factors affect trader thinking and behavior, and algos react accordingly. Hence price lags sentiment, and indicators — being derived from price — must necessarily lag price. More here.

It follows that, to provide any kind of edge, an indicator must somehow tap into an aspect of recurring trader thinking and behavior, or at least the price patterns/phenomena that it generates. Anything less is mere guesswork.

Moreover, if there was a 'holy grail' indicator that could predict tops and bottoms with perfect accuracy, it would have been discovered a long time ago, and everybody would use it and become a fx millionaire. Obviously that's not possible in a (pseudo) zero sum game.

You can use MT4's strategy tester to see if/how an indicator repaints, as explained here.

Sir,

can you please make a dashboard for me,i have 8 indicators to line up and send me the mobile alarm.

thanks

The Dunning Kruger effect = the trader's learning curve

Detailed info here: ("you don't know what you don't know").

I spent perhaps my first 5-6 years in the first section of the graph, climbing toward "I know everything", using simple, mechanical PA techniques to surf trends in uncorrelated pairs, believing that I'd discovered the secret to consistent profit. But as the saying goes "don't confuse brains with a bull (or bear) market". Indeed, I didn't know what I didn't know.

Now, after 13 years, I expect I'm at the "trust me, it's complicated" point. Or at least I was when I decided to take a rest from fx part way through last year.

Jack Schwager's wisdom

Below (blue typeface) is a excerpt from the preface of Jack's book, New Market Wizards, which he wrote after interviewing several of the world's legendary trader/investor/manager billionaires. Mandatory reading for anybody considering a career in the financial markets imo.

Re points 6 & 7: apparently people are swayed by the idea that superior indicators, with optimized settings, are a key to success, as evidenced by the proliferation of requests in the "I code for free" threads. No offense to anybody, but these folk are effectively climbing the slope towards 'Mount Stupid' in the graphic of my previous post. Human nature dictates that people want to make the greatest amount of money in the quickest possible time, with the least amount of risk, effort, or uncertainty. Is it any wonder why so many fail?

Please feel welcome to comment, but I doubt that Jack will reply.

Here‘s what I believe:

1. The markets are not random. I don't care if the number of academicians who have argued the efficient market hypothesis would stretch to the moon and back if laid end to end; they are simply wrong.
2. The markets are not random, because they are based on human behavior, and human behavior, especially mass behavior, is not random. It never has been, and it probably never will be.
3. There is no holy grail or grand secret to the markets, but there are many patterns that can lead to profits.
4. There are a million ways to make money in markets. The irony is that they are all very difficult to find.
5. The markets are always changing, and they are always the same.
6. The secret to success in the markets lies not in discovering some incredible indicator or elaborate theory; rather, it lies within each individual.
7. To excel in trading requires a combination of talent and extremely hard work-(surprise!) the same combination required for excellence in any field. Those seeking success by buying the latest $300 or even $3,000 system, or by following the latest hot tip, will never find the answer because they haven‘t yet understood the question.
8. Success in trading is a worthy goal, but it will be worthless if it is not accompanied by success in your life (and I use the word success here without monetary connotation).

In conducting the interviews for this book and its predecessor. Market Wizards, I became absolutely convinced that winning in the markets is a matter of skill and discipline, not luck. The magnitude and consistency of the winning track records compiled by many of those I interviewed simply defy chance. I believe the Market Wizards provide role models for what it takes to win in the markets. Those seeking quick fortunes should be discouraged at the onset.

I intended to contact you via your profile page but there is no email address. I would appreciate your guidance as I have a question for you that I would want to ask in confidence. It's not a question about trading or how the indicator functions. Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it. - Ray

Just yesterday I cashed up my trading account with the fund manager and received the amount that I was expecting. In short, it amounts to a net 135% gain over a period of almost 11 years. Sure, that's not a huge return, but from the statements he provided there were very few losing months (actually none, during the 6 year period up until Covid), which represents a fantastic level of consistency. Because I was a small client, his fee was 50% of profit above the high watermark, which of course also reduced my net return.

Skeptics will likely say something like he was running a ponzi and used other clients' deposits to pay me. Others might simply accuse me of lying. I could post an image of my bank account, but I expect I'd be accused of 'photoshopping'. All I will say is that the money I received will be put to good use, and that I know what I know. I'm satisfied with the outcome of the experiment (that it's possible to make a systematic income from trading) no matter how many disbelievers there are. I did some IT work for him and his ex-partner (in lieu of payment, he agreed to trade a small account for me) and consequently, after several skype sessions, I learned how their trading system works. Its soundness, including strict risk management controls, and the fact that I got to gauge his integrity for myself, prompted me to proceed.

In case anybody thinks I'm writing this to promote his business: I won't be posting his name, as he prefers to remain anonymous. Moreover, I doubt that it would be much use to anybody, unless you've got a six-digit sum that you're willing to invest. I'm not even sure whether he's looking for new clients.

In fairness to the skeptics, this doesn't necessarily prove that it's possible to make consistent income from retail forex using a MetaTrader broker. He doesn't use MT4/5 and describing him as 'retail' would arguably be demeaning. And if I understand correctly, he trades other instruments in addition to spot currency pairs.

I am happy to have had off line interactions With You Sir Hanover. thanks for all your Years of Service. Keep Enjoying your well deserved retirement. Thank you for sharing this experience. Only one such as us, knw the Value of these Testimonials. if it is of any comfort. Some persons, though it is their right to be skeptical, will not be convince. An in the words borrowed off henry Ford; if you thing you are can or you think you cannot, you could be tight. So which would you chose. When it comes to your Testimony Sir Hanover (DL) i am with you. P.S. you should see what DeepSeek and ChatGPT are doing with the Space that you Left... In another year or two they might just Fill that void. Again. Thanks for your years of indefatigable service.