Failed forex strategies, opinions and reasoning. - page 6
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
It is surprising that many people have not yet been able to appreciate the introduction of the "Every tick based on real ticks" testing feature.
This is a long-awaited revolution in the MT5 tester.
But for some reason many people keep repeating the old song that the tester shows incorrectly.
Enough to test among Market robots, in "Every tick" and "Every tick based on real ticks" modes, you can see a huge difference between the two modes.
Practice shows that the results of testing in the real ticks mode are more than 80% similar to the results of real trading.
And without a tester it is simply impossible to develop a profitable trading strategy.
Failed forex strategies are all those that are not based on objective information capable of correctly predicting the future more than 50% of the time.
I.e. while choosing a strategy you have to think how crazy and out of touch it is, for example any TA and trading on it is crazy, or fitting a lot of different parameters to the history is also crazy, averaging is also crazy, selection of mathematical models is also crazy :) that is what 90% of beginners and not very beginners are doing is complete nonsense.
Simply put, the strategy should be: If I drink now, it means I'm pouring liquid in my mouth, with very rare and almost unbelievable exceptions :)) The strategy should be clear - if something is happening now then what is happening is absolutely clear to me and I am sure that it is profitable.
And without a tester it is simply impossible to develop a profitable trading strategy.
The selection of mathematical models too :) I mean, what 90% of beginners and not so beginners do is complete nonsense.
-No way.
This automatically implies that the creation of automatic TS is "nonsense and nonsense", because any automatic TS (including neural networks, etc.) is a description of some mathematical model, and nothing more.
On the whole, I agree, But with this one:
-No way.
It automatically follows that creating an automatic TS is "nonsense and nonsense", because any automatic TS (including neural networks, etc.) is a description of some mathematical model, and no more than that.
If the TS is based on real patterns and not fictitious ones, then it should not be. The real is not what happens after the fact (what happens after the event, patterns of all), but what is a priori real for this environment, the market in particular
If they sell fish in the market, we can determine its existence and the chances of winning at buying it simply by observing that it really exists :) Then our chances of buying it are almost 100%, or we can always look into the ground and see the scales from the fish and assume that it exists on the counter, under which the scales, understand the difference? ) That's the second approach will never lead to a positive outcome in the long run
If the TS is based on real patterns and not fictional ones, then it should not be. The real is not what happens after the fact (what happens after the event, patterns of any kind), but what is a priori real for this environment, the market in particular
Either the selection of mathematical models is complete nonsense (then the ATS makes no sense), or the selection is necessary, at least to search for the proverbial "real patterns".
The second question is less interesting:
Failed forex strategies are all those that are not based on objective information capable of correctly predicting the future more than 50% of the time.
They are not. When a loss is a ruble and a gain is three. So many trading systems (from my sources, and here on the forum) trade quite successfully with a probability close to 0.5.
I am merely writing that these claims are incorrect.
Either the selection of mathematical models is complete nonsense (then the ATS makes no sense), or the selection is necessary, at least to search for the proverbial "real patterns".
The second question is less interesting:
Failed forex strategies are all those that are not based on objective information capable of correctly predicting the future more than 50% of the time.
They are not. When a loss is a ruble and a gain is three. So many trading systems (from my sources, and here on the forum) trade quite successfully with a probability close to 0.5.
I'm just writing that these statements are incorrect.
Without a tester, it is simply impossible to develop a profitable trading strategy.
It should be clarified, because the market exists longer than the ability to simulate it within a reasonable time frame.
When developing a trading strategy, you don't have to find any mathematical patterns. There are a lot of them. And they are the ones that do not last long. Because these patterns are always randomly changing each other.
You have to find the nature of the market, I mean the nature of price movement, which never changes. It is the same as it was 10-20 years ago and it is the same now.
With the advent of testing on real ticks, it is possible to compare the results with Every tick mode (which "earns" millions).
A profitable trading strategy in both modes ("Every tick" and"Every tick based on real ticks") should show almost the same results. Such a strategy also works stably in "Random delay" mode.
But in my opinion, every beginner has to go that route on his or her own and get his or her own bumps in the road. :)