How about that!!! - page 3
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
xrust, you really are a magician. I'll go in and have a look. To steadily chop almost 120k pips in 9 years with quite serious targets, i.e. over 1000 per month is a trick. His profit factor is fantastic (it's a good safety cushion). You have to look at it specifically. Well, say, how profitable trades are distributed over time is an important parameter. And there's a lot more to look at.
2 tyler: Learn the basics of proving the robustness of the system. This proof, as I get more and more convinced, is more valuable than the Expert Advisor itself( there are a lot ofgrails chopped in the Internet, but which author has provided reliable proof of their performance). You can only sell grails with unproven robustness for pennies on pay.ru. There are several approaches to such proofs, but none are straightforward.
You are making many too obvious mistakes.
1. your report is with a non-permanent lot. You've been told several times: post a report with a 0.1 lot. This is a good indicator of how many pips the system makes per testing interval (or per trade). If testing at 0.1 does not break the strategy, this report is very informative.
2. your report is one way chopped off trades, which is a direct indication that it is exploiting a trend. What kind of grail is that? What will happen to it when the trend changes? Well OK, post a similar report with opposite trades included and then show them together. If they together show something serious on a large number of trades, then we will talk about something.
3. Your reports often have too few trades. 24, 36, 60 etc. It cannot serve as a basis for statistically reliable conclusions. It would be better if the number of deals were in the hundreds, or better, in the thousands.
4. You have fantastic drawdowns, unacceptable for a serious trader. Reduce them to acceptable ones.
5. Your reports often have an unacceptably low quality of testing. It should be 90%.
Also, important: all these conditions are necessary, i.e. they all have to be met at the same time. By the way, these are only part of the necessary conditions, just so you know.
I can give you a report for 8 years if you send me the history from 2000 to 2008
Press F2 and download the history you want. Although you're probably more accustomed to bushwhacking in case of inconvenient questions. Like for example here, 'Expert!!!'?
Also, there is a commercial version of this EA, which adds Fractal Channel, which gives a lower drawdown of about 22, improved order execution, works on all currency pairs .
What commercial version? This is your credo to make people laugh? Maybe you should study the basics, read some books? Have you learned nothing from the previous forum, where you falsely attacked them? Nobody waited for the results you promised...
Although even the name of the threads you created like this!!!, Expert!!!, Appreciate my adviser !!! can only cause a smile, and even the content ...) >> "To divvy up, rub it in, sell it, and dump it.)
I can give you 8 years of report if you send me the history from 2000 to 2008.
>> Shaw! Again?
I already posted you the quotes I got from the same masterforex you are testing on, and I have a real account.
You didn't provide a report. But I'll spare no traffic and give you the quotes if you'll answer for the bullshit and post the test. Is that a deal?
And let's start with April 2007.
The Expert Advisor is working without optimisation
Well look, according to the report for December EA earned about 340 pips with a drawdown of 47%, although in reality the euro went through about 2000 pips in December. Good or bad, I don't know. But I think this is not a very good indicator to be honest ..... )))))
What did he say? An EA that on M30, at opening prices will give a rising straight equity with no drawdown... Shall I go on? Clearly, no need to blather on - miracles do not happen. Well, tell me, what is the trick, Wikileaks.
Gentlemen! Calm down please, no fanaticism.... Of course this is a trick, we're all here sensible people and we know that there is no grail (well, unless it's for the tester ...
). But I'm honestly in the title ... In general, the idea was to trade on statistical data - remember profitable patterns in the past, and when they appear in the future ... But it turned out that despite accumulated rather large (since 99 year) statistics the patterns don't practically appear in the future, and there is no reality in OOS. True and the presentation of the pattern in the form of a point after treatment is incomplete, I will work more in this direction trying to bury as much data about the pattern as possible, for later it is recognized intellectually with application of the feedbacks. May someone already have the information - will you share your impressions?
In my experience - don't be too precise in remembering the patterns. They are repetitive, but not 100% alike.
In my experience - don't be too precise in remembering the patterns. They are repetitive, but not 100% alike.
Thanks for the advice, can you tell me what kind of neuronics you would prefer in this case ? and the method of data representation ?
The idea was to trade on statistical data - remember profitable patterns in the past, and when they appear in the future ... But it turned out that despite accumulated wide enough (as much as possible - since 99) statistics the patterns practically do not show up in the future, and there is no reality in OOS.
This is the tricky part, describing the pattern and recognizing it. A very detailed description of the pattern does not bring any meaningful statistics and a superficial description brings statistics but it is worth nothing.... (I've been looking for the golden mean for about a year now...) I searched through a lot of literature, tried different variants of realization. The result is not very happy yet, though there is a profit in principle...
Shaw! >> again!??
Looks like I blew the grail purchase for the second time.... :)