The championship: how the leaders opened - page 2
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
Dmitry, two good runs.I wonder what will happen with the MM.Is it possible to downsize positions to reduce risk in the long term trend for three months?
To be honest, I have no idea, the Expert Advisor was trained back in the early days of registration and has not changed, and there is no possibility to retrain because of the strict requirements for the Expert Advisor. I didn't expect him to retain market awareness at all. And I see only that he does not like the trend as he does not open in several positions and there is no diversification. I don't know, let's just see what happens. I can say that, by the way, he has mood and memory, like you and me, that make him behave differently in similar situations and I do not know what decision he will take, but I assume that he will improve the exit system. And he will start to think about MM after stop or drawdown more than 30-40%.
To be honest, I have no idea, the expert was trained back in the early days of registration and has not changed, and there is no possibility of retraining because of the strict requirements for the expert's work. I didn't expect him to retain a grasp of the market at all. And I see only that he does not like the trend as he does not open in several positions and there is no diversification. I don't know, let's just see what happens. I can say that, by the way, he has mood and memory, like you and me, that make him behave differently in similar situations and I do not know what decision he will take, but I assume that he will improve the exit system. And he will start to think about MM after stop or drawdown more than 30-40%.
I would not have been tested with my primitive stuff. Good luck again.
This year, the risks are outrageous. I've never seen anything like it before. I haven't seen anyone make more than 100% profit on the first day. Well, that doesn't count. And for three days +300% - how is that? I don't get it. The risks are outrageous - and so are the profits.
Alexey
I think people have followed the principle: one-two-way and it's yours - take it or leave it, from the mud to the manor.
Maybe someone's confident in their TS and increased their aggression
--
My initial run was 240k.
Then I took out the risk and ran it for 190k.
but even with this run i found a lot of points that took me down in the 3 month interval
having estimated a big trend around 19 09 2008 I left 190k for the Championship
but nevertheless my lot is still huge and I have chosen it for Championships
of course it is important to start in such situations
and i would not be surprised if i go down
---
i have a good indication the trades on the tester and the real coincide with each other, there is a spread but they usually open one minute at a time
I don't understand what's unclear here :)
I bet the psychology of the average nub participating in the championship has led to the following procedure for preparing an EA for the championship
1) Write/copy/buy an expert
2) Optimise parameters according to taste
3) Run it for three (most likely the best) months
4) Compare final balance with results of 2007 champion
5) If we missed it but have not lost the deposit, increase the risk per position and go to point 3
6) If we lost, but did not draw the deposit - go to point 1
6) As a result, you have profit no worse than the Champion of 2007
Naturally, no one looks at the risks with such an approach - the Championship rules allow it. Well, the resulting size of the position is inversely proportional to the value of the ideas incorporated in TS.
For those who don't write the algorithm is 100% correct :-)))
+1
----
here i think the market has a completely different character than in 2007
and using 2007 as a yardstick just to get over 130k is the wrong approach in any situation
---
in 2008, it's realistic to exceed the 130k of 2007
just because of the difference in average daily exchange rate
who will have a good long-medium term can make a legal piper
it is hard for a "legal piper" because of the strong moves
---
a new term was born
(С)YURAZ - "legal pipser" - from my point of view - when program moves slightly more than spread by 1-2 pips or 3-4
and within the allowed - but his stops will still be longer than his take
---
i.e. with a 5p stop loss and a 4p spread a pip should take 6-7p - from my point of view, this is also scalping
you could also call it a different kind of work on the small-ruby.
---
mat expectation will always be negative
the piper will try to play on ticks
- this is bad - because it is very difficult to debug this miracle because of the variety of filters - not every broker will work
and the non-existent concept of "honest" tick data
there are a lot of problems - up to non-payment of account
---
working on the brink of a foul - both from the point of view of risk of non-payment by the broker - and from the point of view of the risk of the TS
you may be right, but the approach is dead wrong. the only thing to do is to bet for real - take it and leave it!
bet at another time will get a series of craps - get upset and decide I will not do it again
This year, the risks are outrageous. I've never seen anything like it before. I haven't seen anyone make more than 100% profit on the first day. Well, that doesn't count. And for three days +300% - how is that? I don't get it. Risks are enormous - and so are the profits.
The volatility is much higher.
For example on EUR, the average volatility of 22 days (High-Low days)
Now the yur has 2-3 times more volatility during the same period than at the start of the championship in 2007.
Moreover, in 2007 it was optimized at low volatility levels. In September-early October 2008 the volatility is much higher than in the previous periods, therefore the underestimation of the risk may be significant.
The question of how the correct system, if they risk up to half of the depot, then one of two or it's roulette, or we do not know something ... But I think the moderation has a chance to win, provided that all Aggressors will be wrong in the beginning (two weeks).
Moderation versus Statistics. Not too long ago I held a parallel Monkey Trading Championship 2007. The conditions are very simple: deal direction, takes and profits are determined randomly, lot size is determined automatically for selected stops and risk level (I used 30%). Among 600 monkeys there were enough "cool traders" who made much more profit than the winner of the last human championship.
Moral: the more participants there are, the greater the chance that the aggressive monkey will win. If the 2007 championship had 1200 participants - 600 humans and 600 monkeys - there is a 100% probability that the monkey would win. It is unknown what will be the proportion of humans and monkeys in 2008, but the future of tournaments is predetermined - with their increasing popularity, the number of participants of all types will grow, and only monkeys will win.
A side moral: no championship report can tell which one is the human and which one is the lucky monkey, i.e. you have to know how it works to buy a strategy.
You should not confuse the notion of trade collateral and trade risk. It is better to protabulate the risk of the initial trades by stop losses. If there were no stop losses, consider the risk to be 50% of the depo.
Everything is correct. Only without knowing the exit algorithm in the Expert Advisor, you can not say anything about the risk based on the stop loss set at the opening. It can be set just in case, to limit losses in case of a sharp movement against the position, for example, on the news, when the exit signal has not yet had time to form. And practically, it will never work.
In your Expert Advisor, for example, this method is used to limit losses through modification of Take Profit.
Everything is correct. Only without knowing the exit algorithm in the Expert Advisor, you can not say anything about the risk based on the stop loss set at the opening. It can be set just in case, to limit losses in case of a sharp movement against the position, for example, on the news, when the exit signal has not yet had time to form. And practically, it will never work.
In your Expert Advisor, for example, this method is used to limit losses through modification of Take Profit.
That's right, it's about roughly estimating risk from available data. But agree, it is still better than drawing conclusions by analysing collateral on transactions.
Moderation versus Statistics. Not too long ago I held a parallel Monkey Trading Championship 2007. The conditions are very simple: deal direction, takes and profits are determined randomly, lot size is determined automatically for selected stops and risk level (I used 30%). Among 600 monkeys there were enough "cool traders" who made much more profit than the winner of the last human championship.
Moral: the more participants there are, the greater the chance that the aggressive monkey will win. If the 2007 championship had 1200 participants - 600 humans and 600 monkeys - there is a 100% probability that the monkey would win. It is unknown what will be the proportion of humans and monkeys in 2008, but the future of tournaments is predetermined - with their increasing popularity, the number of participants of all types will grow, and only monkeys will win.
A side moral: no championship reports can show who is a human and who is a lucky ape, i.e. you have to know how it works to buy a strategy.
You are absolutely right. And the rules of the Championship are to be blamed for it, because in order to win they push the participants to go to the group of monkeys, increasing the maximum size of the opening position to the point of recklessness.
Artificial limitation of aggressiveness is necessary, for example, by setting the leverage to 1:10 instead of 1:100, which would dramatically increase the chances of true participants and reduce the chances of monkeys. Indirectly such a limitation exists in the form of a maximum size of 15 lots, but it is turned on too late. Here I ran my Expert Advisor in the tester again and was surprised to see a result of 75 000 000 instead of the usual ~ 300 000. It turns out that MQ on the demo server has removed the limit of 5 lots in its settings.
It would be interesting to try your Championship in monkey with 1:10 leverage, how would the results change?
The beginning of this year's competition was very favorable for many Participants, because it was a very strong trend of euro-dollar, and this is the pair on which most of the Expert Advisors work. By getting a good momentum in the beginning, they can significantly improve the last year's winners. It is like to start three days later but with a larger initial deposit.
Well, let's see...
There should be an artificial limitation of aggressiveness, for example by setting the leverage to 1:10 instead of 1:100, which would drastically increase the chances of true participants and reduce the chances of monkeys.
I don't see your logic. If the championship is run with 1:10 leverage instead of 1:100, then the monkeys will finish with 20k instead of 110k on their balance sheet. And the "true" participants will have 11-12k on their balance. So what's the point of such a manoeuvre then?
The beginning of this year's RPM was very favorable for many participants, because it was a very strong EUR/USD trend, which is the currency pair most of the Expert Advisors use. By getting a good momentum in the beginning, they can significantly improve the last year's winners. It is like to start three days later, but with a much larger initial deposit.
No, they got the momentum, grew the deposit. Now trades are executed in large volumes. As soon as the trend changes to a flat, these large volumes may severely hit the depo and return it to the starting point. So the initial momentum (unless it lasts for 3 months) doesn't matter. The main thing that the market has time to show itself in all its variety during these 3 months. And it can do it.