Championship. Rules. clause III.6.6 is unclear :-) - page 4
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
According to the formula - Yes, but an official opinion would be appreciated.
Yes, the formula clearly shows the conditions.
I don't understand this point too - not to use scalping: if 25% of trades have profit within spread, a participant will be disqualified. And I checked - 358 of 595 scalper deals [60.17%], positions are simply closed with 0. I corrected the expert to close them with "-", but will it change my position?
Then it is better to make the CU at minus a point. Then in a disqualifying percentage of risk (25%) this "almost" breakeven deal does not get.
Otherwise you may encounter disappointment if about 50% of transactions have brought the basic profit, 25% of transactions have brought them to the breakeven point (within the spread) and a quarter of all transactions turned out to be unprofitable. Nice performance, and disqualification in the end.
I did so BU minus one point
Still, it's a bit artificial, this condition (25% of pips in total profitable trades => disqualification). It is very strict.
In my opinion, brokerage companies are primarily interested not in what share of profitable trades was pips, but in what share of profit they brought to the common pot. If this profit share (in the total profit) is 50%, this is a serious statement concerning strategy's pipsing. This is a normal criterion of scalping.
Roughly speaking, the number of profitable scalping trades can be as high as 80%, but their contribution to the total profit can reach only 20%. And it is clearly not a pipsqueak.
P.S. In winwin-2007, scalping deals have contributed exactly 100% to his total profit - and it is not too important how many of them there were in relation to the total amount of profitable deals. This is a pipsipser. For example, a system where 20% of profitable trades have 100 point profit, and the remaining 80% of profitable ones have 2 point profit, is clearly not a scalping one: trades with 100 profit bring 92.6% of profit.
Still, it's a bit artificial, this condition (25% of pips in total profitable trades => disqualification). It is very strict.
In my opinion, brokerage companies are primarily interested not in what share of profitable trades was pips, but in what share of profit they brought to the common pot. If this profit share (in the total profit) is 50%, this is a serious statement concerning strategy's pipsing. This is a normal criterion of scalping.
Roughly speaking, the number of profitable scalping trades can be as high as 80%, but their contribution to the total profit can reach only 20%. And it is clearly not a pipsqueak.
P.S. In Winwin-2007, scalping deals have contributed exactly 100% to his total profit - and it is not too important how many of them there were in relation to the total amount of profitable deals. This is a pip-switch. For example, a system where 20% of profitable trades have 100 point profit, while the remaining 80% of profitable ones have 2 point profit, is clearly not a scalping one: trades with 100 profit bring 92.6% of profit.
+1
IMHO pipsing is not when the profit is small but when the order lifetime is small. And if an order is closed on 0 and is considered a scalper operation it is clearly a mistake (IMHO)
>> so I did the BU minus one point.
Wouldn't it be easier to put a CUE in the spread+1 point? And when forcibly closing the position, do you check that the trade is not closed within the spread?
Exactly, because of this cruel condition we have to invent an artificial solution to the problem - and it is doubtful that EA's quality is not reduced.
I suggest an ideal replacement of this condition in the Rules (for next year, of course): expected payoff should be higher than spread. For multicurrency - respectively for each currency.
Example: 100 profitable trades, 30 of them have 20 point profit, while the remaining 70 trades have 2 point profit. Gross profit is equal to 30*20+70*2 = 740. So, the average profit trade is equal to 740/100 = 7.4 pips. This is not a pip - although according to the current rule it is a pip!
Makes sense, Gans-deGlucker. OK, so we go back to the alternative option I suggested earlier: the gross profit on pipsize trades should be no more than, say, 50% of the full gross profit.