Counsellors to whom. Lots of them and for free! - 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
I don't know why you're so hostile (in the next thread) about custom indicators - according to my observations their performance is no less than when calling built-in..... of course, if not written by hand.
If observations are made not visually but by optimization time, then embedded indicators have advantages over custom ones. And some custom ones load computational resources to such an extent that it is impossible to wait for optimization completion at all.
See FAQ: What is the algorithm for rating strategies?
... The rating algorithm is confidential information ...
Of course the author has the right to keep the technology secret, but then people will not share alternative ways of rating. And in fact, I think there is a lot.
Well, could you post statistics on current strategies, i.e., profitability, expected payoff, PE, etc.? Plus, preferably, periods of time for which the strategy was generated and tested.
dug this one - here it is
ssbirobotu20090319.mq4
A hint - better name it something related to the parameters (extern) of this EA, otherwise it will turn out later that there are 20 (if I'm not mistaken) absolutely identical EAs. Personally, yesterday I've had 2 of them (with the same parameters).... when renaming. (True, I'm not sure that external parameters can't change the order)
1. Of course, the author has the right to keep the technology secret, but then people won't share alternative methods of evaluation. But I think there is a lot to share.
2. Well, could you post on the website statistics of current strategies, i.e., profitability, expected payoff, FS, etc.? Plus, preferably, the periods for which the strategy was generated and tested.
1. there is no point in this sharing. We do not argue about tastes, but only flub. What is a criterion for adequate choice for some strategies may be no less adequate criterion for others. That's why there is no and can't be any consensus. The SSB repository was created to avoid mistakes in strategy selection. Each strategy is tested by distributed computing and its rubbish is eliminated step by step.
2. Why should I put strategy statistics on the website, when users already see all these parameters when selecting specific options, along with balance/equity charts? The site is not a rubber one, and the hosting is paid. So I only put there the most necessary information at my discretion.
A hint - it is better to call something related to the parameters (extern) of this EA, otherwise it will turn out that there are 20 (if I'm not mistaken) absolutely identical EAs. Personally, yesterday I had 2 of them (with the same parameters).... when renaming. (True, I'm not sure that external parameters can't change order)
I suspect it's not just about external variables - but also internal indicators - let Yuri correct me if I'm wrong...
1. there's no point in this division. Taste is not a matter of arguing, it's a matter of flubbing. ... there is and can be no consensus ... The trash is gradually sifting out.
What I downloaded yesterday (strategies) contained, in my opinion, rubbish that could have already been sifted out. I did not save it, but I would have shown it otherwise. So tastes are tastes, but some minimum standards for the selection could have been voiced and discussed. But you have to understand - I'm not making any pretence! Thank you very much for the fact that the tool exists.
2. Why do I need to put statistics of strategies on the website, when users already see all of these parameters when selecting specific options?
Imho, a table of current strategies in the rating is useful. And it takes about 100 kilobytes of space. It is unlikely to load the site, but information about the strategies will not need to be separately generated, saved, compiled. But again, I don't insist. I understand that you have your own tasks and priorities.
But, by the way, you wrote that you can give away all the "trash" for free. I can take it. Preferably in *.ssb (not gz) format. If it is sorted out by instruments and timeframes, I can quickly generate a table of statistics on it all. It would be interesting for everybody, imho.
Good afternoon, all.
Yuri, if you can clarify this point - at the first strategy generation some parameters are used, and at the next ones others.
At the same time, many say that the use (for example) RSI parameter 9, for CCI 14, etc.
I want to run the generation with standard indicator parameters, advise me how to do it and if it is possible.
Good afternoon, all.
I want to run the generation with standard indicator parameters, advise how to achieve this and if it is possible.
Who forbids you to set "standard" parameters for already generated EA?
At least see if it is worth standardising anything at all in a non-stationary environment.
What I downloaded yesterday (strategies) contained, in my opinion, rubbish, which could have been already screened. I have not saved it but I would have shown it otherwise.
If you don't like it, don't use SSB. Nobody is forcing you to.
Why should you waste your precious time, if only "rubbish" is downloaded from the repository? >> Why waste that same precious time on flubbing in this thread? Do something more profitable, useful and enjoyable.
If you don't like it, don't use SSB. No one is forcing you to.
Why should you waste your precious time if the only thing you get from the repository is "rubbish"? Why waste that same precious time on the rubbish in this thread? Get busy with something more profitable, useful and enjoyable.
Yuri, no one said anything about not liking it.
On the contrary, I have stated only positive things about SSB here and before.
It certainly generates interesting strategies.
You used the word "trash" yourself, I just used your "term".
After all, in the rating process it is "trash" that is discarded by your system.
I wanted to clarify the criteria for classifying it as "trash", i.e. rejection.
If you are not willing to discuss it, then what can you do.
But let's at least be polite to each other.