More strategies? No problem! - page 5
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
In terms of total generated, FSB has the upper hand
In second place is SX with zero result, but grandiose in potential
And in third place is SSB, assembled with my hand and without any trading, using two claps and three hops on a couple of standard oscilloscopes.
I've been thinking, so I suggested, that we introduce the criterion of "usefulness for the user" (something like public benefit). :) Imho, SSB is still in first place for MT4 users. But the user friendliness, in spite of a good site, faq, etc., is, alas, in the last place. Too bad...
Why assess them at all?)
Lyrics, imho, should be tested with algebra. Algebra should be checked with lyrics. You can, of course, use "in one hand" as well :) but some aspects may slip away. But this way the peaks are drawn. :) And a certain synergy, which is usually beneficial.
Lyrics, imho, should be tested with algebra. Algebra should be checked with lyrics. You can, of course, use "in one piece" :) but some aspects may slip away. But this way the peaks are drawn. :) And a certain synergy, which is usually beneficial...
Maybe you are right. And it's worth comparing them one way or another, but for now it's premature, the development in the branch we're talking about became available only today... We should at least give it a little time to mature, have time to use it for 2 days), to eliminate possible "bugs" etc. And then mercilessly compare them)
And then mercilessly compare them).
Yes, of course, the SX needs a 'spread'.
About "mercilessly" - I think it's better to just compare them objectively. :)
Although I've been thinking about this - it's not enough to create strategies, it's important to cull them.
That is to discard the "trash". This should probably be the most important "module" in oscillators.
In fact, only in SSB does any of this work somehow. Imho, it's like - "Polichinelle's secret",
but nevertheless, the algorithm exists in principle, which neither FxSB nor SX has. Here everything has to be
to do it by hand...
I wish someone would write, but it's useful to gerererate all these experts on standard inlucas.
There is in the real world.
It works in a simple way. The very first files are the Expert Advisor and the set for it with parameters for optimization. I have to disable genetics beforehand.
I prefer clockwise. At least it will take a lot of time on TFs less than that. It is possible to run a 4-hour timeframe for 10-15 hours.
Yes, I also can't show useless results, otherwise, in theory, there could be enormous brakes, only pluses, there should be no shortage of them.
Not the first day I test Expert Advisors, I ran this generator in the tester with SET file and it took me about 3 hours. The bar didn't even move and in fact it didn't show the number of variants.
Try someone else, maybe I have a glitch with the terminal. Although other EAs are testing, it means it's working.
FxSB is definitely a strong product and its versatility is incomparable to the simplicity of Russian programmers.
FxSB is definitely a strong product and its versatility is incomparable to the simplicity of Russian programmers.
Oops! It is necessary to introduce a criterion of estimation according to the number of available indicator variants. FxSB is really out of the competition.
I apologise for barging into your conversation without having tested either programme.
But there are a couple of questions.
Is the SX(TheXpert) program a combinatorial explosion via MT4?
Or is it still optimising the conditions?
I apologise for barging into your conversation without having tested either programme.
But there are a couple of questions.
Is the SX(TheXpert) program a combinatorial explosion via MT4?
Or is it the optimization of conditions?
What the fuck is the difference? Especially as you're not even going to test it.
It is the end result that counts, not the scientific name for the way it is produced.