Scold :) Interested to hear your opinion regarding... - page 7
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
How does an Expert Advisor know, if there will be a trend within a year or not, and if there will be a trend, then what kind - up-trend or down-trend, or a flat, or alternation of one, the other and the third, or events will develop in some other way? And MM has nothing to do with it, we could open with 1 lot down (because the Expert Advisor has no market direction estimation functions, etc.) and just wait for Kolya Morzhov to come... But instead he is literally fumbling for price movement with small lots.
No one needs to know whether there will be a trend or not. You have tested on an area with a clear upward trend. Using TP>>SL denotes that you are catching big moves, as you say, fumbling for a move. Trending up denotes that the stats between shorts and longs without the use of MM will have a bias towards longs. This is what is observed. You have more profitable longs when trending upwards.
From what I can see:
1. TP>>SL is trend-following,
2. the test was done on a strong up trend,
I can confidently say that the excess of profitable longs over shorts can and should be explained only by the presence of a trend, that profits can and should be explained only by the presence of a trend.
To confirm the magic properties of your MM, please, post the test results from 26.12.2004 to 15.04.2007. Perhaps then you will allow me to change my opinion. For now it is very simple - qualitatively and quantitatively your profit is explained by the application of a trend following strategy (TP>>SL) on a clear trend. Any trend-tracking strategy, including buy and hold, will lead to a similar result.
No one needs to know whether there will be a trend or not. You have tested on an area with a clear upward trend. Using TP>>SL denotes that you are catching big moves, as you say, fumbling for a move. Trending up denotes that the stats between shorts and longs without the use of MM will have a bias towards longs. This is what is observed. You have more profitable longs when trending upwards.
From what I can see:
1. TP>>SL is trend-following,
2. the test was done on a strong up trend,
I can confidently say that the excess of profitable longs over shorts can and should be explained only by the presence of a trend, that profits can and should be explained only by the presence of a trend.
To confirm the magic properties of your MM, please, post the test results from 26.12.2004 to 15.04.2007. Perhaps then you will allow me to change my opinion. For now it is very simple - qualitatively and quantitatively your profit is explained by the application of a trend following strategy (TP>>SL) on a clear trend. Any trend following strategy, including buy and hold, will lead to a similar result.
I totally agree.
If the phenomenon is obvious, unambiguously defined, a number of self-sufficient arguments can usually be made.
A trading system built in a "no-action" manner, namely only on whatever the TP:SL ratio is, will not work. Simply because it's no-action. Basically, what is TP and SL? It's an order to enter/exit the market. The order will be executed, but there is no reason for it to "come to life". Fitting in a limited area is self-defeating. And there is simply no other basis.
If the process is not random but trending (trending in the Vita example and bimetallic coin in my example), then the process chart will be skewed. No TP and SL can change it. It is only possible to exploit this phenomenon. But it is only possible if the trend is known in advance.
The meaning of any strategy comes down to the implementation of algorithms that exploit some property of the market. Trading orders for entry and exit should be generated in correspondence with the essence of this trend. And the methods of realization may be different - by direct instruction of a trader or program or by TP and SL.
But what magical properties of MM are they? At least they are logical.
What is the logic/advantage of sitting out big losses and grabbing small profits? There is no logic, no advantages, just statistics (which no one has seen, by the way, but it can be accepted) - the vast majority lose deposits.
As for the results of the test - I'm sure there will be sinking, the constant value of SL is good, but the constant value of TP will kill everything at the root. For there is no such (here it would be appropriate to say - magical) value of TP. Moreover, I am sure that even optimization may not give a single sensible option.
The result shown above is not the result of a complete and working EA, and certainly not a magical grail:) it is just a successful (due to the testing period, although it was originally created out of necessity - the last year) demonstration of the rule - "cut the loss, increase profits".
And when to collect the profits - that is another question.
Ouch... What's the difference between TR and SL?
Oh, but... does this difference have to be constant? and why? :) why should the values of the same SL and TP be constant on a non constant market, or maybe they should (!?)? who determined this and on what basis?
sorry, you're asking the wrong question, i got confused :)
what is the difference between them, you ask? i think the difference is huge
I apologize for interfering, I've been coming to the conclusion about T/P and S/L getting in the way for about half a year.
In essence everything has boiled down to the probability of further movement for a certain period of time, if it is high - we stay in a position without looking at anything, if it has fallen below a certain value, we close without looking at anything.
SK may have meant that the market does not know whether you have + or -.
How magical are they, these MM properties, anyway? At the very least, they are logical.
The posted result ... it's just a successful (due to the testing period, although it was originally taken out of the blue - the last year) demonstration of the rule - "cut the moose, grow the profit"I don't doubt that there is logic in your MM. But it's not what led to the profit of the EA on this section, and TP>>SL is, of course, also an MM, but extremely simple. There's a chance that's what you're talking about all the time :). The "cut the moose, grow the profit" rule is identical to a TP>>SL - trend-tracking approach. I have no doubt that the trend-tracking approach can be successfully demonstrated on a trend. However, this approach fails utterly when the market fluctuates within the expected TP, endlessly demolishing SL. I just wanted to point out that flies and cutlets should be separated: TP>>SL on the trend section made a profit and MM did not show itself in any way.
What is the logic/advantage of waiting out large losses and taking small profits? We have no logic, no advantages, just statistics (which, incidentally, no one has ever seen, but it can be accepted) - the vast majority lose deposits.
There is logic if you find a signal (pattern) that is much smaller than the noise. To remove the small difference from the signal change, you will have to sit out the noise.
Никому не надо знать, будет тренд или нет
I need it :))) I would rather, knowing that there will be a trend, I would really open 1 lot in its direction and quietly, with even more pleasure, for example, play chess with SK at the cottage and talk on various distracted topics :))
когда рынок колеблется внутри ожидаемых ТР
about values, constants, I was just asking the question above, what do you think about that?
это, конечно, тоже ММ, но предельно простой.