Simbasystem-gbpusd - page 104
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Zupcon,Minime
Hi zupcon and Alan,
Thanks for your kind words,I appreciate them..
Regards
Simba
To Newdigital
I don't see any problem.
Simba posted all the indicators on the first post as mql4 files. Besides there is EA posted for GBPUSD (on the 1st post of this thead as well). As I understand it is MTF EA for M5 timeframe.
And I also looked inside the code of this EA:
//| SimbaSystem.mq4 |
//| Simba, programmed by Malcik and popok_sakti |
//| https://www.forex-tsd.com |
//+------------------------------------------------------------------+
#include
#property copyright "Simba, programmed by Malcik and popok_sakti"
#property link "https://www.forex-tsd.com"[/CODE]
So, that's no any problem: it is free trading system with free EA developed inside our forum.
And, according to my limited programming knowledge this EA was coded in right way: it was coded on close bar:
[CODE]Chandelier_Up=iCustom(NULL,PERIOD_H1, "ChandelierStops_v1",0,1)And so on.
Of course we can not say exactly about this EA anything based on backtesting results only (because it is MTF EA) but everything is fine as first imagination (by backtesting).
The other pairs seems the subject of the settings I think. And as I understand the settings for this EA came from this manual trading system. So, if we want for this EA to be profitable for the other pairs we need to come back to the beginning: attach indicators to the chart, see the settings and so on. It may be also more profitable for GBPJPY (but with more bigger drawdown).
Some people are selling MTF EA in commercial section but Simba (together with Malcik and popok_sakti) created free MTF EA as source code and it is very good support for our forum.
Of course MTF EAs are more risky than usual normal EAs. But anyway it is very interesting.
If someone feels that this EA needs to be improved so it is possible to place some suggestions, ideas and so on and authors will reply. Because source code was posted on the 1st post.
Sorry, I did not follow this discussion by 2 pages on this thread but I think that it is very good thread with very interesting EA.
This thread is very popular and quoted 10 times on many national forums but as I can not read Portuguese and Chinese languages so I don't know what they are talking about this system.
As I see this EA is based on ChandelierStops_v1 indicatr created by Igorad inside this thread https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/175391 (plus SATL and ATR) so may be this thread is more related to this section https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/trading_systems
We are having 1 or 2 public EAs developed inside our forum and based on digital filters so this EA is the next one.Hi Newdigital,
Thanks for your words,they are full of common sense,and I appreciate them..
The thread has been possible thanks to the works of Malcik,popok,Frantacech,Duke..Igorad(Chandelier stops v1),codersguru(xpma_satl),Keris(MTF...)and the hundreds of people that contributed with their opinions,their indicators,their suggestions..and their time testing and improving settings to reach a common and supporting goal
Actually,the thread originated as a manual system(that is what it is indeed),and we decided to create an Ea to be able to test those settings that were "doubtful",like distance from Chandelier,tp based on atr or fixed,etc..and learn from this testing,and ,most important,share this learning experience with everybody at this Forum
Please feel free to move it to the Digital indicators section,if you feel like doing so,although the "soul" of the thread was and is ..a manual trading system,and how to adopt the "assumption testing" mentality to survive in trading..Malcik and myself developed a totally different Digital version,let me check with him,and ,if he has time,we will start a new thread in the Digital section in a few weeks..
Thanks ND for creating the necessary supportive environment to make it possible
Regards
Simba
Thank You Simba
Simba,
I remain in the background most of the time because I am still learning but I wanted to take the time to let you know that I have read your thread and learned much from it. You are one of the posters here that I always take note of when you post! There is a very good reason for this, you know what your talking about! Thank you for sharing what you have.
Have a Great Day!!!
HS
PS sorry for the off topic post.
I have got a really stupid question. On the first post of this thread there is the most up to date files to download...a zip file and another file which I think is the EA.
Which one do we download if we want to test the EA? Do we just download the second one? or do we need some of the files from the first one (zip file) to make the second one work?
Again...my bad understanding always gets in my way and I am unable to test these real good systems over and over...as they are always confusing at the most basic level...WHAT TO DOWNLOAD AND HOW TO GET THEM TO WORK!
ES
it would be great if this thread is kept small, we owe it to the developers to read before we ask
the thread originated as a manual system(that is what it is indeed)
Regards
SimbaTo Electric Savant
I have got a really stupid question. On the first post of this thread there is the most up to date files to download...a zip file and another file which I think is the EA.
Which one do we download if we want to test the EA? Do we just download the second one? or do we need some of the files from the first one (zip file) to make the second one work?
Again...my bad understanding always gets in my way and I am unable to test these real good systems over and over...as they are always confusing at the most basic level...WHAT TO DOWNLOAD AND HOW TO GET THEM TO WORK!
ESHi ES,
You need both the EA and the indicators,so you have to download both the zip file and the .mq4
Regards
Hi Chutia,
Well,if +3800 pips in 2 years and 2 months,without compounding, is mediocre performance for you,I only have to ask you to enlight us with your trades...
You know ,it is only backtesting,but,until now,I hadn`t seen anybody attacking an EA on the sole basis that its backtest results were good
I won`t attack the backtesting results of your copycatted Eas because it will be too easy,and,besides I have no interest in Eas,besides using them for testing ideas and learning from them ...I am a manual trader...Just what you will never be
But anyway,just for the record,no one of the Eas you posted UNTIL TODAY has comparable results...you do not need to delete them,don`t worry,I won`t post them here..;)
Be an Ass again...you can`t avoid it..it is in your nature..and keep increasing my viewsSimba
Believe what u want and many many traders believe what they want.I rest my case for the intelligent
Those indicators are worth nothing .There is only one use for them.They need to come off like a whore's drawers.
Here are tests of a system with all indicators disable and Simba's system and all its fancy indicators.The data is different and I accept my figures/ data may not be accurate
Difference on profit 8100 vs 3800.
This is a system I have been working on for many years, but one which I could not prove like today due to my non existent programming skills and also due to non existent help with programming/writing E A from most of you
Best regards
El cid
Tests
Simba
Believe what u want and many many traders believe what they want.I rest my case for the intelligent
Those indicators are worth nothing .There is only one use for them.They need to come off like a whore's drawers.
Here are tests of a system with all indicators disable and Simba's system and all its fancy indicators.The data is different and I accept my figures/ data may not be accurate
Difference on profit 8100 vs 3800.
This is a system I have been working on for many years, but one which I could not prove like today due to my non existent programming skills and also due to non existent help with programming/writing E A from most of you
Best regards
El cidHi,ElCid...you made a small mistake ,the difference of profit is not 8100(your system) versus 3800...it is versus 38000(Simbasystem)...very easy to check,you just have to take a look at the 2 statements that you have posted...since both start with the same equity and both are for the same period and pair,we can easily compare...I took a pic of the screen ,so,you don`t need to rush to delete your post..;)
Basically:
1-Simbasystem:38k profit with 8% drawdown.,Profit factor 1.88
2-YourSystem : 8k profit with 6% drawdown,profit factor 1.25
Frankly,I doubt this is going to be considered an improvement
...anyway I congratulate you for trying,and ,besides,this issue you have with me is not about your "still to be developed" system being better or worse than simbasystem..there are hundreds of systems better than simbasystem and ,probably,hundreds worse too..this is not the issue,the issue is more personal,or so it seems..
Frankly,if you want to hiperoptimize a system to beat simbasystem for the period tested,I would expect you to do better than what you showed,but,even if you succeeded.. it is going to lead you nowhere,since everybody knows it would be just the result of hindsigth optimization,so,don`t waste your time and try to focus your energies in developing ,even from rehashes,your own system...
Anyway,and in anycase,it should be interesting if you asked yourself about why,until now,nobody has lent you a hand in coding an EA...If you accept my opinion regarding this matter,I would say that your continuous statements regarding people "going to steal" your knowledge,etc,etc,didn`t contribute much towards your goal....
You know,my experience in this Forum has been that if you disclose anything of value,and you ask for help,you will find enough fair people that in reciprocity,will help you in coding your knowledge into an EA.
Of course,it could be the case that you didn`t want to disclose everything in public,afraid of the copycatters that lurk in the shadows of the Internet
appropiating and renaming other people`s EAs,then the solution is just to pay a professional programmer to code your EA
Regards
Simba
Hi,ElCid...you made a small mistake ,the difference of profit is not 8100(your system) versus 3800...it is versus 38000(Simbasystem)...very easy to check,you just have to take a look at the 2 statements that you have posted...since both start with the same equity and both are for the same period and pair,we can easily compare...I took a pic of the screen ,so,you don`t need to rush to delete your post..;)
Basically:
1-Simbasystem:38k profit with 8% drawdown.,Profit factor 1.88
2-YourSystem : 8k profit with 6% drawdown,profit factor 1.25
Simba
If in reality one can achieve those results , I must agree that your system is very good although I would like to reserve confirmation of this until I give it a try and test it out
Please do accept my sincere apologies
Best Regards
El Cid
Simba
If in reality one can achieve those results , I must agree that your system is very good although I would like to reserve confirmation of this until I give it a try and test it out
Please do accept my sincere apologies
Best Regards
El CidApologies accepted,though you should note ,first that both simbasystem and your "system" where working on historical periods,second that the tests for simbasystem,as you rightly noticed by adapting your testing period to it,started on June 04 and ended on end February 07,so,a much better way to estimate its potential would be to run an out of sample test,for example ,with exactly the same settings,from March 07 to now..(7 and a half months)
Please see attached..basically
Profit:7k...profit factor: 1.81....max drawdown 4.6k(26%)
You could also test a different out of sample period,like Jan01 to May04..41 very bad months for trend systems...please feel attached too..basically:
Profit:16k...profit factor:1.35...max drawdown 5.1k(31%)
So you can expect a system with a pf of between 1.35 and 1.81,that generates between 40 and 100 pips per lot per month..NET
Of course it is nothing exceptional..but the settings behave fairly well out of sample,because we avoided overoptimizing them