Determine the future operability of the vehicle. - page 9

New comment
 
rider писал (а) >>


PS2 There are so many topics of the same type that you don't know where to write..... to the admins - should we merge them?


https://forum.mql4.com/ru/7531/page8

https://forum.mql4.com/ru/10828

 
There is more than one question. An EA with deep stops works in such a way that at certain intervals several uncompensated orders may be opened with a considerable current loss, which then, in most cases, by controlling the orders, aggregate to a profit. If this is the time period when optimization finishes, all of them will be closed with the current loss. At the same time, we can see that the balance is sharply increasing towards equity at the end of the chart. Of course, if there is a drawdown limit, this variant is rejected.

How to avoid it?
There is a parameter "minimum margin level %" in the tab "optimisation" - what does it mean - equity? and most importantly, how to set this limit correctly?
 
Shit, "Only Circles on the Water" .....
 
Open a new thread, you'll see better. Don't like the vinaigrette here.
 

Vinigrette is when "Hidden Divergence" is considered along with everything else )))))

Why? Same optimisation. Opened it already, got a link to these - closed ;).

If "newbie", it is a global thoughts, and even these have not been discussed to the end yet by anyone ......

That's why I addressed to admins - to merge it all into one topic, even if haphazardly - the authors will delete all unnecessary information themselves later.... Because here, in addition to theory, a lot of technical issues, and they (admins, developers) do not appear :) ..... all this can, of course, empirically check,

But I have never seen any entries in the log during optimization, even though I have set margin limitations in EA properties, even crazy ones.

 
Здравствуйте,
Образцы вычислений:
Optimization. Model: Every tick. Parameter Set 1.
===========================================================================================================
Step  Genetic alhorithm | Input:  Parameter 1  Parameter 2 | Output: TN Profit  Max. Drawdown    PF  Trades
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.1           +         | Best:          0.5          0.2  |             55427          14759  4.62      17
0.05          +         | Best:          0.45         0.20 |             52006          15194  3.58      17
0.05          -         | Best:          0.50         0.15 |             58073          15044  4.76      17
=========================================================================================================== 
Optimization. Model: Every tick. Parameter Set 2.
===========================================================================================================
Step  Genetic alhorithm | Input:  Parameter 1  Parameter 2 | Output: TN Profit  Max. Drawdown    PF  Trades
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.1           +         | Best:          0.5          0.3  |             49137          14569  2.81      32
0.05          +         | Best:          0.50         0.40 |             47681          14436  2.77      32
0.05          -         | Best:          0.55         0.40 |             49563          13819  2.83      32
===========================================================================================================
С уважением,
Ais.
 
"Who were you talking to just now?" (C)
 
Mathemat >> :

Nah, it's not really a kergudu joke, Leonid. The kettlebell has not only gravitational but also inertial mass (they're sort of equivalent), and it's no easier to squeeze than it is to squeeze. Well, in short, the principle of equivalence of masses be damned...

:)

Interesting misconception. Offtop:

Speaking as a former astronaut to a theoretical earthling:

If you're in outer space and resting your feet on the outer shell of a spaceship (weightless state), it's very easy to push off a 200kg kettlebell - you just have to apply minimal momentum to it, and time will do the rest.

If you are a weight-lifter and you apply to the kettlebell a force, equivalent to the gravitational pull of the Earth, then when you deflate it - better throw it to hell, otherwise this "weight" will break the cord and drag the inexperienced "passenger-sportsman" to the open space with itself.

In short: they forgot to say about the timeframe. :)

 

Well, I'm not arguing, coaster. None of what I've said refutes anything you've said. Like you (but only theoretically), I understand that the absence of gravity does not deprive a body of inert mass. Here we have the law of conservation of momentum in pure form - even towards the centre of the Earth.

What I meant here, but didn't specify: let's say we want to squeeze a 32 kg weight "upwards". We know that on the ground we squeeze it upwards at arm's length in half a second. How much power would we have to develop in weightlessness to accelerate it to such a speed that it would be at the same distance in half a second? Certainly not a small amount, and we'd still have to exert a lot of effort. And if we just give it a little nudge with our little finger, it could be in the same place in an hour...

 

2 Mathemath: Not looking at the Membrane? :) It's a fascinating read sometimes.

PS:

I don't doubt that you understand everything, but I was caught by the phrase "not easier" without mentioning time.

12345678910
New comment