@erslnzehra: #fyy #foryou #foryoupage #fyp #istanbul

Zehra Ersln

Open In TikTok:

Region: FR

Saturday 26 September 2026 23:10:45 GMT

27535

1658

3

492

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (0MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (0MB) Watermark .mp4 (0MB) Music .mp3

Comments

Hakim Kelil :

toujours des discussions lunaire devant un thé 😂

2026-09-27 12:49:57

8

A-wax9390 :

Ptdrrr

2026-09-27 17:08:38

0

Hakim Kelil :

😂😂😂

2026-09-27 12:49:12

0

To see more videos from user @erslnzehra, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

83% win rate sounds impressive… until you ask what that number actually represents. There’s nothing wrong with using indicators. There’s also nothing wrong with combining different tools to build a trading framework. The problem starts when a few clean historical examples are presented as proof of a repeatable edge. In this case, the “Absorption Bubbles” indicator is not showing true institutional positioning or directly observing who is buying and selling. It uses price and volume data to infer possible absorption. That distinction matters. Then another indicator is added to generate the actual buy and sell signals, and suddenly we’re looking at an advertised 83% win rate. But before I care about the win rate, I want to know: What’s the sample size? What are the exact rules? What do the losing trades look like? What’s the average win versus the average loss? How does it perform across different market conditions? And does the edge survive after realistic trading costs? Because an indicator can look incredible on selected charts. A strategy has to survive all the trades you don’t put in the content. And when the tool being demonstrated ultimately leads into a paid product, that makes independent verification even more important. I’m not saying the indicator doesn’t work. I’m saying marketing is not evidence of an edge. An indicator can be sold at scale. A genuine edge still has to be proven.

83% win rate sounds impressive… until you ask what that number actually represents. There’s nothing wrong with using indicators. There’s also nothing wrong with combining different tools to build a trading framework. The problem starts when a few clean historical examples are presented as proof of a repeatable edge. In this case, the “Absorption Bubbles” indicator is not showing true institutional positioning or directly observing who is buying and selling. It uses price and volume data to infer possible absorption. That distinction matters. Then another indicator is added to generate the actual buy and sell signals, and suddenly we’re looking at an advertised 83% win rate. But before I care about the win rate, I want to know: What’s the sample size? What are the exact rules? What do the losing trades look like? What’s the average win versus the average loss? How does it perform across different market conditions? And does the edge survive after realistic trading costs? Because an indicator can look incredible on selected charts. A strategy has to survive all the trades you don’t put in the content. And when the tool being demonstrated ultimately leads into a paid product, that makes independent verification even more important. I’m not saying the indicator doesn’t work. I’m saying marketing is not evidence of an edge. An indicator can be sold at scale. A genuine edge still has to be proven.

koe bi cheez bi pasnd ni hai os ky pass#painfullove #mylovemylife #😡😡

koe bi cheez bi pasnd ni hai os ky pass#painfullove #mylovemylife #😡😡

istg last time it was jean, now its mizuki💔 the one time I dont stream for pulls and I lose 5050#GenshinImpact #fyp #ineffa #5050 #loss

istg last time it was jean, now its mizuki💔 the one time I dont stream for pulls and I lose 5050#GenshinImpact #fyp #ineffa #5050 #loss

#recomendation #cs2 #фото #реки #популярное

#recomendation #cs2 #фото #реки #популярное

#PUBGMVampireHunt #PUBGMOBILE #PUBGM460BR

#PUBGMVampireHunt #PUBGMOBILE #PUBGM460BR

About

Robot
API

Legal

Privacy Policy