THE 2007 TRADING CHAMPIONSHIP! - page 2
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
Gentlemen, you forget that by putting up a permanent lot, you completely kill the logic of the experts. Restrictions should be such as not to break the experts.
There is no way we are going to have a competition of neutered EAs.
These restrictions do not break experts in the slightest, much less their logic. Although they do limit the possibilities of MM. And that, imagine, makes sense.
Expert is first of all trading strategy + TA tools. And then the art of MM, order monitoring, error handling, etc. As the Championship has shown it is very difficult to create a good strategy. It is much easier to write 10 lines of code, reinvest them more aggressively, use permitted trade volumes to the maximum, and wait and see if we are lucky. As a result, a competition of strategies turns into a fight for the prize money.
Look at sashken and Zonker, they could really become champions. This is despite the fact that sashken's EA is written with a huge number of errors and has an absolutely adventurous MM. And Zonker's Expert Advisor is a joke. Strategically thought out humour. I think that if any of them had won, it would have discredited the idea of the Championship and MetaQuotes name.
I believe their experience is a serious reason for the championship organizers to think about the rules.
If anything, the competition can be held simultaneously in two subgroups: strategy and MM.
And the main criterion for the development of the rules should be the following:
Strategies should win, not luck. The winner should be someone who is not afraid to entrust their money to them.
Gentlemen, you forget that by putting up a permanent lot, you completely kill the logic of the experts. Restrictions should be such as not to break EAs.
There is no way we are going to have a neutered EA competition.
No one calls for "cutting the experts" (and moreover the EA writers :-)) ) I would like to bring the conditions of the real trading as close to the real trading as possible.
I would recommend not to set additional conditions and try to "put everyone on the same footing" - it looks like a tweaking to fit the weakest. The conditions of the current championship are sufficient - they have been seriously considered and represent a compromise. Think much wider and take into account the 3 sides (Participants, Sponsors and Organisers) - I have repeated this many times. If you put conditions only for yourself or only for one Party, then there is a 99% chance that the conditions will not be accepted. In order to pre-qualify a probable failure, you should immediately think about whether the Organiser will accept it.
The position of MetaQuotes Software has been stated many times in our forums (it is unlikely to change):
https://www.mql5.com/ru/search
http://www.metatrader4.com/ru/forum/search/?search=championship
The level of margin call is very interesting from the suggested ideas. Most likely the level of 50% will be a good condition for cutting off experts with serious drawdown.
We are not going to accept blatantly unsuccessful EAs.
In this Championship, we practically did not assess the trading efficiency of the experts at the entry checkout, but only checked if they met the formal requirements. In the next competition, we will focus on the preliminary trade efficiency evaluation (conditions will be described in detail in the rules at the appropriate time) and weed out those Expert Advisors that are outright weak or stupid.
We are not going to accept blatantly unsuccessful EAs.
That, in principle, is what we have in mind (to eliminate experts working for luck and make the Championship as close to reality as possible) :-)
I would also like to see in the rules the following point.
1 EA in 1 copy of MT4 can be attached to any number of charts because multicurrency EA that trades only one chart for all currencies, is not a programmer's qualification, but perversion of chimping rules.
What is the sense of doing it this way, if in the real trading process the EA is attached to 1, 2, 3, etc. charts
Strategies should win, not luck. The winner should be someone who is not afraid to be entrusted with his blood money.
Lot management is also a part of the EA's strategy and cutting them off is really inappropriate, the other question is how to keep the EAs with aggressive investing out of the equation.
If you look at real trading, the solution is simple. Time. If the competitions are long, an unsuccessful and aggressive Expert Advisor will kill itself.
But it is clear that it would be too expensive to hold a competition lasting a year or at least half a year (I've already written many times in the comments to the contest news about how and how much metaquotes were invested during the Championship 06)
But no one banned testing Expert Advisors on history before the competitions. But we should make a move like this: lay out detailed histories for 4 major currency pairs (or all possible pairs) that EAs should be profiled on.
Other than filtering out weak Expert Advisors, it would provide the second advantage: Adjustment of Expert Advisors to the same conditions.
It is no secret that many participants optimized their EAs on different chistories (someone downloaded them from the history centre, someone optimized them using data from their brokerage companies, someone downloaded different chistories from the Internet and mixed them together)
Besides prepared and published chistories, we could use the possibility of pre-championship testing, something like a trial run, when the EA is being placed on the server for 2 weeks and started to trade, but after those 2 weeks the developer should have the opportunity to add the necessary parameters to the chart. The reason for this is that many EA developers do not have the opportunity to test their child in combat conditions, and one or two test weeks, it is the minimum required to eliminate most of the unexpected problems.
p.s. After the end of the Championship, I couldn't resist the urge to test my main EA from 10.01 to 12.25 with the parameters set by the Championship. I set 5 lots opening for the position and as a result of testing I got 5k more profit than the Rich's EA :) (but this is just a talk about aggressive reinvestments, I would not allow myself that in real trading)
As for the trial run, it is not necessary, each participant has to prepare himself/herself. There are all the conditions for that, both the histories centre and the championship trade server.
In this Championship, we practically did not assess the trading efficiency of the experts at the entry checkout, but only checked if they met the formal requirements. In the next competition, we will focus on the preliminary trade efficiency evaluation (conditions will be described in detail in the rules at the appropriate time) and weed out those Expert Advisors that are outright weak or stupid.
We are not going to accept blatantly unsuccessful EAs.
How can you detect weakness of an Expert Advisor?
For example, an EA opens 1-2 trades per month and gains 200-300 points, can it be considered weak or what?
Perhaps, the rules should include the smallest number of deals, say, at least 10 deals during the Championship.
Otherwise, the maximal number of one-day entering trades will be half a year and this EA clearly has chances to win any Championship.
In this Championship, at the entry check-in we practically did not assess the trading efficiency of the experts, but only checked compliance with formal requirements. In the next competition, we will focus on the preliminary estimate of trading efficiency (the conditions will be described in detail in the rules at the proper time) and weeding out those Expert Advisors that are visibly weak or have stupid ones.
We are not going to accept blatantly unsuccessful EAs.
How can you tell if an Expert Advisor is weak?
For example, an EA opens 1-2 trades per month and gains 200-300 points, can it be considered weak or what?
Perhaps, the rules should include the smallest number of deals, say, at least 10 deals during the Championship.
Otherwise, you may enter only one maximal deal and trend in one direction for half a year and this EA clearly has chances to win any Championship.