Machine learning in trading: theory, models, practice and algo-trading - page 985
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
Throw away your refinement with stops of 50 unreal pips
It's your first day behind the tester.
Developers are machinelayers for fuck's sake!
Just sick of their demands to post the result!
What did you show? Some curves of unknown origin with a fig in his pocket in the form of a period of training at the end of the chart? Not even a tester!
And here is the result, 360% in 14 months, with a decent balance chart, with a bunch of characteristics, with the original text.
And to MO has a direct result.
This is the finalized Expert Advisor from here
The input is a uniformly distributed random variable from which we get buy/sell. You see - random.
But in all exercises on this branch the error is less than 50%, and the ratio of profitable to unprofitable in the base case is 47/53.
Then why do you need the MO? And why do you need the MO in your version? After all, you don't provide any evidence that the model is not retrained! And if NOT to deal with the problem of retraining, here is a free Expert Advisor fromPetr Voytenko.
Looks like a great advisor (!!!!)
broken link
This is a revised Expert Advisor from here
The input is a uniformly distributed random variable from which we get buy/sell. You know, random.
I was going through it, too, back in '10. I wrote about it somewhere. I worked out optimal support-closing deals, and made my entries random, so as not to bother. The idea was to minimize losses by supporting-closing. My surprise, I have got the profit of 10-15% per month.
Looks like a cool advisor was (!!!!)
broken link
Why is it broken? It works for me.
Here is the text
I went through it, too, back in '10. I wrote about it somewhere. I practiced optimal support-closing deals, and made the entries random, so as not to bother. The idea was to minimize losses by supporting-closing. To my surprise, I have got the profit of 10-15% per month.
When I saw it, I was ecstatic - the clearest proof that it is necessary to deal with the predictive ability of predictors, and necessarily with the proof that this predictive ability does not change much.
Then the tester will prove this fact to us.
And what does the tester prove for the Random Advisor? It only proves that there is a random order at entry. Does the tester for this EA prove the future behavior of the EA? It does not. That was not the question.
Why is it broken? It works for me.
Here's the text
cool
Here is an automated version of manual trading
And here is another option because of the other take/stops
The loss, which has been accumulating for a long time in small parts, is here at once.
By changing the parameters it is possible to get the most different variants in appearance.
When I saw it, I was delighted - the clearest proof that we should deal with the predictive ability of predictors, and necessarily with the proof that this predictive ability does not change much.
Then the tester will prove this fact to us.
And what does the tester prove for the Random Advisor? It only proves that there is a random order at entry. Does the tester for this EA prove the future behavior of the EA? Nothing, the question was not posed in such a way.
It seems to me it is just a proof of market randomness, at least, randomness for an observer.
In fact, I work as if it were a random process. Yes, some part of trends is lost, but it is compensated by more trades, because the noise is more high-frequency.
Hmm. In the end, the bulk of the profit is made by the trade support. Well, and, probably, the MM, which I never understood.)
It seems to me that this is just a proof of the randomness of the market, at least, the randomness for the observer.
In fact, I work as a random process. Yes, some part of trends is lost, but it is compensated by more trades, because the noise is more high-frequency.
Yes, it has a place.
Game theory begins with the following problem.
In a completely dark room with a blindfold on, the king is trying to catch his page, who is also blindfolded.
Question #1: What strategy should the king follow to catch the boy, who is hiding in the corners, in the minimum number of steps?
Question #2: What strategy should the henchman follow to avoid the king, who is searching in the corners, for a minimum number of steps?
The answer is the same: a uniformly distributed random variable.
Behind a very positive balance graph is this very position that the increase in the quote is a uniformly distributed value
Yes, it does.
Behind the very positive balance chart lies this very position that the increment of the quote is a uniformly distributed quantity
Well, here we come to a Wiener process, or a Wiener-like process. What's there to predict? The best predictor is the value itself.
But we can predict a normal distribution (or near-normal distribution). Not in the literal sense, of course, like a trace of a candle.