A draining trend of the Championship. - page 7

New comment
 
Michel_S:

I have an interesting idea.
Why Experts during the Championship easily reach the balance level of 20-25 thousand and then faces some level of resistance? After the first week of the Championship many Experts have quickly reached this level. And now, there are Experts who can easily jump to this level starting from 10 thousand in a couple of trades. And then they go up to the level of 20-25 thousand.
I think it has to do with the size of the allowed lot at the Championship (5 lots), the number of positions to be opened simultaneously, some corridor width of the set limits and currency movements. It is like the range of ballistic missiles. And the starting point is the initial deposit.

............................

No, the restrictions in the rules may limit the rate of deposit growth, but not its size.
The fact that many of them have stopped growing rather indicates either that the growth was random in the beginning (some of them were in profit, some were in loss - someone had to be lucky), or that the effect of optimizing parameters is coming to an end.

I recalculated the results of my robot for the case of MM with lot range 0.1-5.0 (it trades with MM 0.2-1.0 in the contest, i.e. position size is not larger than 1 lot). It turned out that at the moment his balance would be ~ 27K, i.e. 3K more than the first place got now :)) And this despite the fact that it was not optimized and not tuned (it adapts itself), and there were serious errors in its code.

Eh, I over-insured ... :))
 
Mak:

No, the restrictions in the rules may limit the rate of deposit growth, but not its size.
The fact that many have stopped growing rather suggests either that the growth was accidental in the beginning (some in the plus, some in the minus - someone should have been lucky), or that the impact of optimising the parameters is coming to an end.

It seems to me that the nature of the market has changed somewhat. Most likely, Expert Advisors of those who have gained much at once - indicators of experts work on larger periods and the experts themselves are of "trend-type" and with the big risk and big stops or no stops, which corresponded to the first half of the month. Then the Expert Advisors started to "wobble" a bit and, evidently, they do not handle it well. This is why profits do not grow and some profits even slipped.
However, this does not concern vdiddy38, the leader so far. His Expert Advisor, as I have learned, works at 10 o'clock Price Channel and its logic is based on narrowing and widening of the channel. It takes selectively and immediately with big lots, mainly in two portions of 2.5 lots each, with Take Profit 110 for one "portion" and 270 for the second and trailing 90, the stop put on the penultimate High or Low, depending on the direction, which I think is not the best solution. If the channel does not change and a stop triggered, the trader reverses immediately, and if the deal is successful, it adds one more portion to the "twist" of the price channel. But waiting for the narrowing of the trading range, it misses some good trend areas. Besides, it is trading the most volatile and "relatively expensive" symbol.

By the way, I'm afraid of putting more risk and set twice less risk than I usually calculate, and stops are twice closer, although during the last year's test even at higher risk profitability was higher than two.
I have already said something about Expert Advisors making hasty mistakes. I had some problems at the beginning too.

However, Forex is a very good "school". In everyday life, in politics and outside job one can make mistakes, make wrong predictions and everything goes wrong. In this case if you do something wrong or have illusions it immediately affects the "purse" in the real account or the "time" in the demo. Or am I wrong?
 
I agree.
 
Take 300 EAs, most of which are losing money, and trade backwards.
Slowly but surely the balance will grow
 
nickbilak писал (а):
Take 300 EAs, most of which are losing money, and trade backwards.
Slowly but surely the balance will grow

It won't, because you can't reverse the spread!
 
Ronen:
nickbilak wrote (a):
we take 300 EAs, most of which are losing and trade backwards.
slowly but surely the balance will grow

No it won't, you won't reverse the spread!
Well, it's not by the spread size that they are losing... It adds minus, but it is not decisive.
 
I agree, but trading backwards is clearly not going to make a profit... if it worked that way,
then we could have reversed all of the losing EAs!!!
But as a rule, if an EA is losing, then no matter how you turn it around, it will continue to do so!
 
Ronen:
I agree, but trading backwards is clearly not going to make a profit... if it worked that way,
then we could have reversed all of the losing EAs!!!
But as a rule, if an EA is losing, then it will keep on losing!

Of course, it is useless to turn around losing EAs stupidly, but it is difficult to deny that when someone is consistently losing, one can "guess" profitable directions while looking at their trade. You just need to think how to do it correctly.
For example, if we choose a group of Advisors that consistently lose, we can set reverse aggregate positions without going into their trading algorithm. If they are in minus, the opposite sign should be plus. Or there are other variants?
 
It sounds right, but in fact, as many times as I've tried to flip (look for inverse patterns, tweak, optimize ... etc.) plum examiners rarely come out anything sensible :(
 
If it were that simple and obvious, all brokers would have been doing it a long time ago. I think it has occurred to them at one time or another, but there's got to be a problem somewhere! I wish I knew where... :))
123456789
New comment