The grease of simple capital increases

The Mechanism of Simple Capital Increase

In market terms, it is merely doing the same approach as low-risk, high-return investments

It just happened to be a Pilar (PIRA) neglect

Pira neglect = all-in on the market

Time-wait reservation trades = trade only on the market’s validity

The essence of trading is a single-shot trade at a fixed interval during time waiting

Forex Street has been able to grow because strategies in ranges and trends like 1:1 are universal

If you logi-cize based on universally possible market phenomena, you can “increase anytime”

That would be ideal; do not expect anything else

Pira basically has only negative elements

Fundamentally detached from the notion of increasing

In fact, doing it in one shot before Pilar is far more profitable

The very idea of Pilar is questionable

To increase profits

First, enter with a single-shot rather than Pilar

Then, in the ensuing trend, place Nandipin Darambel to increase quantity

For the logic, for that rule, for that type

No use changing the method

Basically, changing quantities and such is the key

That itself becomes the algorithm

If you insist on a single approach

The only paths are to aim for consecutiveness or to optimize timing

The easiest is

A logic that requires no thinking, like consecutive staking

To make that effective, you need capital strength

If you simply aim for red-black consecutiveness, it ends with a reverse Martingale 10-win streak or something like that

If you can increase with equal staking, that’s fine

Focusing only on optimal logic for equal staking is correct

In a pure no-thought consecutive staking

It is a different concept from Martingale

In other words

The midpoint is 5

And there is a concept of betting 1 or 10 depending on strength

If there is a realistic tug-of-war or probability thinking

It should be possible to logi-cize them

If not, it ends as mere mental theory

That is,

The optimal logic of equal staking

or

The idea of reverse Martingale 10-win streak

In roulette

If you consider red/black, high/low, odd/even

There are three bet types at 1:1, and the scenarios where they hit vary

At this time, do not consider win rate; win rate is meaningless

In market terms

A simple 1:1 for buying and selling

A simple 1:1 around-and-back on hedging

And depending on the logic, the nature of 1:1 changes

The roulette types imply such thinking

The hitting scenarios differ

Win rate is merely "set" by the rule, not inherently equal to "win rate"

Also, if you consider red/black, you must choose either red or black

Choosing red or black here and applying reverse Martingale won’t yield a win

Also, as you can see from the results

When red does not come, continuing red is meaningless

In other words, within a fixed period, the outcome is already determined

Therefore, entries occur a fixed number of times within a fixed period

Continuing trades tends to reduce returns except during high return periods

If you alternate red/black with reverse Martingale two consecutive wins and so on, the returns often decrease

There is a lot of decrease

Aiming for returns within a fixed period

With Darambell, after several tries you eventually reach a point where you cannot keep winning

So basically, unless it’s universal like equal staking or reverse Martingale single-shot, it won’t grow

In trends, neglecting or leaving it alone

In live roulette,

Choose reverse Martingale single-shot red/black or consecutive staking

Either way

Universal increases and decreases → successful capital increase; you must continue

※ For those who want to keep earning with FX, go here ↓