Low Quality Broker Data on MT5 - page 3
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
Again, you misunderstand. What I stated is that Dukascopy data is almost identical to the underlying data used by NDD brokers because they com form the same source. There or only a few data feed and liquidity providers so it is quite common for these brokers to be using the same source.
Oh my apologies.
In my experience, the data from Dukascopy differs slightly from data from other sources. The market closing 1 pip higher with broker A than broker B can be the difference between a trade or no trade. For example a system which trades based upon indicator values is highly dependant upon the OHLC data that goes into the indicator calculation. If when using one broker's data, the market closed 1 point above breakout level, but with the other broker price closed 1 point below the breakout level (assuming you are trading a long breakout system), then that right there is the difference between one trade being entered with one broker and no trade being entered with the other. The table that I posted a few comments back illustrates this problem perfectly.
I agree with you when you say that Dukascopy data is 'almost identical' to the data from other NDD brokers, but even subtle differences can be the difference between a net profit or a net loss, which is problematic when trying to evaluate the historical performance of a particular strategy.
But how does one know in the first place if the system has worked in the past and still does to this very day if no backtesting has been undertaken?
Because they worked and still works ?
Are you trying to say you need to backtest something that has always worked and is still working to see if it can work ?
Wow.Are you trying to say you need to backtest something that has always worked and is still working to see if it can work ?
No.
What I am saying is that if you had not traded the system over a considerable period of time and hadn't run any backtests, then you would have absolutely no idea whether or not the system 'always worked and is still working'. Unless you were some kind of psychic.
You aren't psychic are you Marco?
No.
What I am saying is that if you had not traded the system over a considerable period of time and hadn't run any backtests, then you would have absolutely no idea whether or not the system 'always worked and is still working'. Unless you were some kind of psychic.
You aren't psychic are you Marco?
How about the many people who have used these systems in the past ?
How about the many people who have written about these systems ?
Do you think such system will go unnoticed ?
I just said no need to re-invent the wheel.
It feels im just wasting my time.
It's all there for anybody to look and find, yet they insist it has to be backtested to see whether it can work or not.
This is so wrong, wrong in the sense that it has already been proven to work, and wrong in the sense that you can not prove that it will work by a back test.
I'm having a brain meltdown over this is it that hard to understand ?
I'm having a brain meltdown over this is it that hard to understand ?
I can see that you're having a brain meltdown.
It feels im just wasting my time.
Mmm.
It's like saying here is a strategy that has worked for the past 30 Years.
Here is it's track record to show you that it has worked.
You can try it, to confirm that it still works.
And then you say, can i run a backtest to see if it will work ?
Wicked.
It's like saying here is a strategy that has worked for the past 30 Years.
Here is it's track record to show you that it has worked.
You can try it, to confirm that it still works.
And then you say, can i run a backtest to see if it will work ?
Wicked.
So where is this track record? Maybe you should revisit my post...
" What I am saying is that if you had not traded the system over a considerable period of time and hadn't run any backtests, then you would have absolutely no idea whether or not the system 'always worked and is still working'. Unless you were some kind of psychic. "
At what point in that sentence did I refer to a present track record? I specifically said "if you had not traded the system over a considerable period of time", but for some reason you are answering my question on the premise of there being a track record.
I think you need a lie down mate.
This is a waste of precious time.
I think it's best for you to go back to back testing.
There is no need to discuss an of this.This is a waste of precious time.
I think it's best for you to go back to back testing.
Okay I will continue my backtesting. Enjoy your lie-down.