Automated Trading Championship 2011 - Rules - page 4
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
Please don't try to throw in your ridiculous/repeatable/provocative arguments against a long-standing decision.
Made a few approaches, played around with the statements, but it doesn't work. Leave it alone.
Ok... On the subject of pipsing (still want to be specific, so that no questions arise later):
1. A minimum of 2 spreads (spread specified in the application) and a position that has existed for at least 10 minutes is "pipsing"? Is 25% and more of these trades - it is a disqualification?
2. Is a position reversal or cutting off a position in the area of the opening price +/- 2 spreads a Pips? Is 25% or more of such trades considered as disqualification?
3. Is trailing stop (or forced closing) in the area of the open price / open price + 2 spreads a scalping? Is 25% or more of such trades a disqualification?
4. What should be the average interval between trades related to this position so that it is not considered "pipsing"?
A clarifying question.
Is it possible to have only one order (as I understand from the rules) working on a sivmol at a time, or is it possible to manage all 12 orders as you see fit?
This would be important for my TS since orders are used for many things and we cannot go anywhere without a minimum of at least 2 orders per symbol.
To Renat
Many questions would be solved if MQ were to publish disqualification statistics for previous championships, with the commentaries given by the organiser at the time of the disqualifications. If the organiser of the event were to comment on these statistics in today's time, then most of the applicants would understand what the organiser wants from them. And perhaps they would be able to quantify what you mean by "pipsqueak spirit".
Quite a sensible suggestion, in fact, it is ridiculous to orient technicians towards some kind of spirit.
But Renat's position is also understandable, as soon as the rules are formalized, they will start undermining them.
That's why a disqualified participant analysis would be a good way to formalise the spirit of pipsing.
Again, this does not impose any obligations on MQ, and no one will grab you by the tongue.
I think an article on this topic will give many people confidence.
To Renat
Many questions would be solved if MQ were to publish disqualification statistics for previous championships, with the commentaries given by the organiser at the time of the disqualifications. If the organiser of the event were to comment on these statistics in today's time, then most of the applicants would understand what the organiser wants from them. And perhaps they would be able to quantify what you mean by "pipsqueak spirit".
Quite a sensible suggestion, in fact, it is ridiculous to orient technicians towards some kind of spirit.
But Renat's position is also understandable, as soon as the rules are formalized, they will start undermining them.
That's why a disqualified participant analysis would be a good way to formalise the spirit of pipsing.
Again, this does not impose any obligations on MQ, and no one will grab you by the tongue.
I think an article on this subject will give many people confidence.
I'll second that. Spirit in spirit, but how much to weigh in grams to understand...
Quite a sensible suggestion, indeed, it is ridiculous for a technician to be guided by some spirit.
But Renat's position is also understandable, as soon as the rules are formalised, they will start to be undermined.
That's why a disqualified participant analysis would be a good way to formalise the spirit of pipsing.
Again, this does not impose any obligations on MQ, and no one will grab you by the tongue.
I think an article on the subject will give a lot of confidence.
I support
I've described my situation and comments, I even have the statement of my EA, if anyone needs it, although I doubt it will add anything new.
Pips are most likely to be banned because they are based on MT5 bugs.
So if there are quoting bugs, then get rid of them, not ban pipsing.
The question to competent participants of past championships is then:
- Would an EA holding a position for at least 5 minutes (the maximum is not limited), aiming for a profit of three spreads, be considered a "pipser"?
You may rely on my last year's results; I was trading at the "brink of a foul".
However, it is not a fact that I would not have been disqualified if I had won the prize...
You may refer to my results from last year, trading was "on the edge of a foul".
True, it's not like I wouldn't have been disqualified if I'd won the prize...
Thank you!
I just skimmed through a few pages - your average position holding time is about 30 minutes, is that the "brink of foul"? At least it'll be a benchmark.
I just flipped through several pages - the average position holding time is about 30 minutes, this is a "foul line"? At least it will be a benchmark.
I was actually talking about the targets, they were no more than 3-5 spreads. And almost all profitable trades had them.
And the duration was not controlled, i.e. it was formed by chance. And there is far more than one position that was closed literally immediately after opening.
Probably because there aren't many trades.
To the developers and organisers.
Returning to a question once posed - Is it possible to force the chart symbol to change during the performance of an EA?
There are two points that I would like to clarify:
1. During Expert Advisor initialization, the symbol and period are forcibly changed to the required values (this is the item I am most interested in);
2. During expert's work, the symbol can be changed (for various reasons).
I will clarify the fact that an EA may be multicurrency or trade on the same symbol (it is specified in the EA parameters).
PS
This question arises because we may check it on other symbols and this behavior will be considered unacceptable.