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
In the light of the above, I see the following way :
To build a simple additional Expert Advisor, - and load all obtained sets of parameters into it after the first optimization.
Each set will have its own index. And then we simply insert this additional EA into the tester instead of the first one and optimize it beyond the sample, and the optimization parameter will be the LOCAL NUMBER of inserted sets!
It may be a bit tricky, but it's much better than manually out of sample...
The only thing we need is to consider the versatility of this add-on.
In the light of the above, this is the way we see it so far: ....
In the last case we optimize only the Number, nothing more!
And we just get what we need. Or I misunderstood your post?
But under TradeStation, and not for free ... :))
I don't see any point in doing it under MT, we're not used to paying for work.
Guys, I've had it all working for a long time now.
But under TradeStation, and not for free ... :))
I don't see any point in doing it under MT, we're not used to paying for work.
I'm almost done too)))) And you do not have to embed anything in the Expert Advisor - the programmer gets a file with a set of parameters
It really allows to estimate perspectives of different systems soberly,
And get rid of illusions caused by overoptimization.
Strangely enough, but parameters that have a profit outside the sample are not always profitable. Other selection criteria are also needed.
Integer, do you mean a command like in a loop with the .set parameter file itself, which also needs to be updated somehow?
Sort of. An external program creates a .set file, runs the terminal, monitors the process, then throws in a new .set file, runs the terminal again for testing, parses the report after each test...
OK, the general idea is clear. Well, then the last question to all those who have implemented this project (i.e. Belford, Mak, Integer): is it worth it? Of course, it is nice to have an "optimizer" which does not only curve fit (like metaquote) but also tries to test strategy on out-of-sample data, but does it really deserve a higher score than MQ optimizer (which is also good, but only as a curve fitter)?
Everything is good for the household. There is no point in comparing with MQ, because this program does not test itself, it only runs a tester
In the light of all this, this is the way we see it so far: ....
In the last case we optimize only the Number, nothing more!
And we just get what we need. Or I misunderstood your post?