Automated Trading Championship 2011 - Rules - page 13
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
We have a multi-currency Expert Advisor that works with all 12 symbols. As long as the total volume does not exceed 60 lots (5.00 * 12 = 60.00), there are no problems. The specified points are executed and do not limit the work of the Expert Advisor. But when the total volume of exposed lots exceeds 60.00 lots, this is when the mentioned clauses of the Rules begin to change the strategy. On one hand, I can place only one pending order per symbol (point 4), and on the other hand, I cannot place an order with the volume exceeding 5.00 lots (point 3). This is a problem to solve. Of course this situation has some solutions. For example, we can open the remaining part of the position out of the market (but there will be requotes, widened spreads, increased stop level, etc.) or we can wait until the order triggers and place one more order for the remaining volume. But all of these workarounds will in most cases be less profitable, and maybe not even acceptable for a particular strategy.
Your situation is quite simple - here is an extract from the Championship homepage
The main purpose of the Championship is to popularize automated trading andthe MetaQuotes Language 5 (MQL5).
Hence, we can conclude that the absence of problems (limitations) makes the developers less experienced in handling various market situations and, therefore, less time can be dedicated to the study of language nuances, which contradicts the purpose of the Championship. Ultimately, the organizers don't care if papaklass, Interesting or Vladix won't take the prizes because they were unable to adapt their strategy to the available constraints - those places will be vacant for more worthy candidates who were able to do that.
Also, let's not talk in this thread about wishful thinking, but about clarifying the Rules. For wishes, there is another thread ignored by the Organiser for obvious reasons (see above).
I see three ways out of this situation:
1. to leave clause 4 unchanged and remove the limit of 5.00 lots in clause 3 of the Rules;
2) leave the 5.00 lots limit in item 3 unchanged, but increase the maximumnumber of orders to 36 (3 orders per symbol. 5.00 * 3 = 15.00) in item 4;
3. For multicurrency Expert Advisors modify point 5 by decreasing total volume from 15.00 lots to 5.00 lots. However, this change might cause problems with the server configuration.
You forget that you can put pending orders in two directions and divide them by stop/limit types, so in total 4 orders * (15.0 / 5.0) * 12 instruments = 144 orders
When I start thinking of griders in this context, I get sick... :)
Volume restrictions are intended to reduce the impact of aggressive reinvestment. This has been explained many times in past championships.
The rules state:
"4.The maximum number of pending orders on all symbols at any one time is 12."
Which 144 orders are we talking about?
With their rules, Metacquotes mislead all traders.
Who are the Metaquotes targeting?
Why all these rules?
It turns out that Metacquotes is showing their inferiority. Going outside the rules does not guarantee profits for the sponsors?
Gentlemen, the limiters are more sophisticated when it comes to competitions.
Volume restrictions are intended to reduce the impact of aggressive reinvestment. This has been explained many times in past championships.
Vladix:
You forgot that you can put pending orders in two directions and divide them by stop/limit types, so in total 4 orders * (15.0 / 5.0) * 12 instruments = 144 orders
When I start thinking about griders in this context, I get sick... :)
144 orders is something you should have asked for, otherwise you only care about your strategy, forgetting about other competitors with their pressing problems
In this case, why not 1024 or 2048 (I like these figures better). 24 orders (roughly 2 orders per pair) may also be explained as: TP/SL substitution; OCO/If Done order bindings; averaging orders (in the scheme an open trade + 2 orders) there are more options.
How do we explain 4 orders per symbol (144 per account)?
2. Of course, if 12 orders can be used without any limits, then we can still manage (though not always), then 24 is not needed in most cases.
3. Who needs 4 or more orders per symbol in their strategies may reduce the number of currencies (even down to one) and use all 12 orders to their advantage.
How do we explain 4 orders per symbol (144 per account)?
Vladix:
You are forgetting that you can putpending orders in two directions and also divide them into stop/limit orders, for a total of 4 orders * (15.0 / 5.0) * 12 instruments = 144 orders
Example - you are in the middle of a channel, you put stop orders on the borders of the channel to react to a breakout, and limit orders in case of a reflection from the borders of the channel.
To be honest - for me it does not matter whether there are 12 pending orders, 144 or 1024, the main thing is to have a certain figure. You can always find reasons why it will not be enough.
Renat, could you clarify the 12 orders - is it possible to use all 12 of them at your discretion, or at least all of them for one pair?
There are definitely no limitations on this, only here you will need to remember about the total volume of 15 lots per symbol.
So everything will remain the same. Have I got that right?
III. Expert Advisors for MetaTrader 5
...
8. If the Expert Advisor has behaved differently during the preliminary check and during the Championship, it will be disqualified.
Does this article covers early termination of the Expert Advisor's participation in the Championship, if the Expert Advisor was considered sufficient to win the Championship? For example, the Expert Advisor has traded more than the winner in 2008, i.e. it accumulated over $170,000.
Point 8 is a very general formulation. That's why I asked this question. The figure of $170000 is at least a reference point. It may be more or less, it does not matter. The matter is to deliberately terminate the participation of the Expert Advisor in the Championship. Why? - It is a question for the Expert Advisor developers. If he/she has decided to stop an EA, he/she has his/her reasons for doing so. What are they? - That is another question. What matters is whether the organisers recognise such actions of the EA's author as falling under clause 8 of the Rules?
1. If we look at the termination of trading itself, here's what I think:
If an Expert Advisor (developer) has deliberately stopped trading for some reason, moreover being in a position of profit, then that is his right.
Conscious termination of trading operations, rather than termination by mistake or Coke, in my opinion, would not be contrary to the rules (and logically it should not).
2. If we are talking about a violation of paragraph 8 of the rules - And who will guarantee that the tester will be exactly the same situation and will be made the same decision?
Item 8, as I see it, must cut off Expert Advisors, which during the test traded with minimum lots, and during the Championship decided to comply with very different rules of RM and MM.
Perhaps, these EAs worked as obvious monocurrency Expert Advisors during the test, while during the Championship they have decided to trade the entire list.
3. Of course, it would be desirable to describe the rules in detail (anyway, there is a tricky point about refusing any of the participants without explaining the reasons).
You'd better take care not to drop out of the Championship ))))