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
That's why I guessed that it requires a linear REGRESSION coefficient. The closer this coefficient is to 1 in absolute value, the more linear the yield curve is.
Oh, that's all right! It happens. It must be so easy to get correlation and regression wrong - they always go side by side, don't they? Don't they? ;o)
So, what is your idea concerning the calculation of the correlation coefficient for the variables trade number - deposit size?
What is the physical meaning of such a "linear correlation coefficient" that will tend to 1 in the best case, i.e. the balance - simply to a perfect straight sloping line? Due to purely logical considerations, it is evident that the less loss-making trades there will be, the closer this correlation coefficient will tend to 1. But this can be seen from the analysis of results of a run without any calculation of the "linear correlation", right? What is the physical meaning of this action, besides the fact that the tester has drawn a straight line? ;o)
By the way, I can add one more similar "Paradox" to your "Paradoxes" box ;o). If you take and calculate the correlation coefficient for the run that has been made at profit capitalization, i.e. with the constant increase of the lot as the deposit grows, then the correlation coefficient will decrease from 1 downwards more and more, while the yield curve will be getting steeper and steeper. This can lead to the conclusion that increasing the lot as the deposit grows is not good for you ;o))) I give all official rights on this Paradox to you.
how does it go... ? it's bound by some sort of distance to some sort of average... and sails with it... ... could be tied to an MA for example... say a profit should be within 50 pts of a MA and if price moves away, the profit should follow it... I'm testing with the Canadian one now... the Euro-Buck is not very good there...
That's why I guessed that it requires a linear REGRESSION coefficient. The closer this coefficient is to 1 in absolute value, the more linear the yield curve is.
Oh, that's all right! It happens. It must be so easy to get correlation and regression wrong - they always walk side by side, don't they? Don't they? ;o)
So, what is your idea concerning the calculation of the correlation coefficient for the variables trade number - deposit size?
What is the physical meaning of such a "linear correlation coefficient" that will tend to 1 in the best case, i.e. the balance - simply to a perfect straight sloping line? Due to purely logical considerations, it is evident that the less loss-making trades there will be, the closer this correlation coefficient will tend to 1. But this can be seen in the analysis of results of a run without any calculation of the "linear correlation", right? What is the physical meaning of this action, besides the fact that the tester has drawn a straight line? ;o)
By the way, I can add one more similar "Paradox" to your "Paradoxes" box ;o). If you take and calculate the correlation coefficient for the run that has been made at profit capitalization, i.e. with the constant increase of the lot as the deposit grows, then the correlation coefficient will decrease from 1 downwards more and more, while the yield curve will be getting steeper and steeper. This can lead to the conclusion that increasing the lot as the deposit grows is not good for you ;o))) I give all official rights on this Paradox to you.
2. As for curves with money management or other conditions, when the system trades with a non-permanent lot, normalization applies, i.e. the balance is calculated as follows
balance[i] = balance[i - 1] + OrderProfit() / OrderLots();
i++;
We obtain the yield curve as if the system opened trades with 1 lot. And no paradoxes.
The figure shows just the initial stage of your proposal (getting the values of a and S). That is, the figure shows the result of one run in the tester. It is not difficult to obtain parameters a - linear regression coefficient and RMS for this graph. Suppose we have 1000 such charts based on the optimization results. As a result, we have an array of values 1000x2, where the first index is the run number and the second index is the values of a and S respectively. Further, what can display the obtained values of a and S on a two-dimensional graph along the axes show except for the extrema which may be several? I just want to know what you mean?
For a start we can open this file and see if our runs add up to a dense enough spot on the diagram or not. We discard the 70-80% of runs that do not fit into the needed confidence band (let's say) and carefully look at the parameters of the EA that have given us the results of the remaining runs. If these parameters will also give us a certain confidence level, instead of dancing around the entire range - then the results are quite stable and can be objective. If not - it means that some parameter(s) in the Expert Advisor are redundant and the model itself should be changed.
I think the methodology should be practiced almost manually at the initial stage in order to streamline it later.
2. Regarding curves with money management or other conditions, when the system trades with a non-permanent lot, normalization is applied, i.e. balance is calculated:
balance[i] = balance[i - 1] + OrderProfit() / OrderLots();
i++;
We obtain the yield curve as if the system opened trades with 1 lot. And no paradoxes.
with delayed on axes influencing variables is not desirable intensive spots.
To give you an example ... EA chart for 7 years... ( profit 10 p) stop 300 but profit floats with the price even if in a loss.... Profit to drawdown ratio of about 25 for seven years... it's not much in principle... but you can make 200 annual profits.
Realistically, however, this is not the case. It's just a beautiful mirage. And there are a lot of them. This should always be borne in mind.
In reality, it is not. It's just a beautiful mirage. And there are a lot of them. You should always keep that in mind.
Well, it depends on whom.... Who has a mirage and who has a real one :)). in real life, it's a similar picture...