The work of robots on the real. Why people are disappointed - page 5
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
although it may turn out to be bullshit...
I have long had a very interesting idea how to trade only on the basis of the stream of quotes without considering the candle at all and I really want to publish my signal for this strategy, and I have not implemented it so far only because of my pathological inborn laziness to all sorts of things)
although it may turn out to be bullshit...
In a nutshell, what is the model?
In a nutshell, what is the model?
If you don't know the outcome, you may be surprised by how fast the reading is, because the price is trending upwards or downwards.
I don't want to sound too secretive, but the model is so simple that two words about it may tell you the whole strategy.)
Even if the signal stagnates, it won't last long, sooner or later the price will make a great move up or down. That's its nature: it's always creeping.
What does all this have to do with full order books? Do you use volumes?
What does all this have to do with full order books? Volumes - are you using?
i.e. they are pseudo information.
I decided not to use the order book (i.e. full order book) and volumes because i think these things are just decorative in forex.
I.e. it is pseudo information.
In forex, quotes are INDICATIVE, i.e. the price is not formed from the bids in the book, but by the market maker (liquidity provider). This means that the market maker executes your order. Market makers sometimes refuse to execute their own orders at the prices they offer. The client, whose order has been received by market maker, in this case receives either reject (rejected execution) or a new price (slippage). This is the right of market makers in the forex market. That is why volumes and prices in the stack are not as important on the forex market as they are on the stock market.
The main difference between the Forex and the stock exchange is the execution of orders:
- On the exchange, execution is based on the order book and the client, whose order from the stack is being executed, CANNOT change the conditions (volume/price) of execution;
- on the forex market maker will execute your order and may change the execution conditions.
Indicative and what? These are all working points on which it is not necessary to theorise for a long time.
If there are such people who work with this information, I am very happy for them.
i would like to ask you to tell me how they deal with this kind of pseudo-information.
Maybe everything is much simpler, the tester and the real, the essence are different things, I will not dig into a lot of why, for me it's just a fact, tried once to defend my point of view on forums, but rarely met understanding and just stopped insisting on it publicly, while "people" continue to believe in the tester....
From my point of view, the tester has one practical use, to check the code algorithm of an EA or indicator or nothing more ... It IMHO is not suitable for testing trading systems, I won't explain why not,
For myself I found a way out when testing my ideas, start using a demo account, then go straight to a cent account and then to a small real account... This requires immeasurably more time than running the idea on the tester, but practice shows it is more effective... and at least it allows avoiding the black box effect when the cause of events is unclear - the system is not working or there is something wrong with the tester....
.... Trying to understand what's wrong with the tester often leads away from working on the TS...
First of all, I apologize for the long absence - I have been very busy.
=Maybe it's simpler than that, the tester and the real thing are different.
Not so different. If you set up on ticks or in the tester of a real account at the real quotes of the brokerage company you are setting up the machine to, then the difference between the tester and the real trade is minimal. But, unfortunately, not everyone knows how to use the tester correctly.
=For me I found a way out when testing my ideas - a little on the demo account, then immediately to the cent account and then to the small real account and then... This requires disproportionately more time than running the idea on the tester, but as practice shows it is more effective=
Unwarranted waste of time, although in terms of reliability, yes, it is more reliable. I do about the same, but first I build in a tester. It is long, tedious and meticulous.
It takes a lot of time, but it's days, not months. Then I demo, carefully on the real, and if everything is OK, I go full steam ahead.
I have long had a very interesting idea how to trade only on the basis of a stream of quotes without considering candles at all and I would very much like to publish my signal for this strategy, and I have not implemented it so far only because of my pathological inborn laziness towards all sorts of things)
Although it may turn out to be bullshit...
I don't know if you mean the same thing I do, but I'll take my chances...
I "draw" candlesticks myself. Virtual ones, of course. No one will argue that if you trade on a day, the risk will be minimal and the profit maximal. But this is when trading manually.
If we use МАшку or other Inductors on days, or with decent averaging, then we obtain only a few deals per month. However, as a rule, all of them are profitable.
I have worked out another method (not for the MA, I use my own practice) - the same daily (or hourly or four-hourly or weekly - does not matter) I build on minutes, shifting the starting point every minute, ie I have NO jumps at the opening of a new candle, therefore a faster and more accurate reaction to price changes.