"The 'perfect' trading system - page 94
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
No problem!
1. Complete absence of fixed takeoffs and stops. Only dynamic, i.e. depending on the situation, but "force majeure" should be.
2. A minimum of parameters. I do not know how to get rid of them, since whenever we have a neural network or patterns, we will still have some sort of parametric constraints.
>> Go on, criticise.
3. A theory of market behavior built into an Expert Advisor would not hurt... Unless, of course, it's the "almighty and only true trading theory".
The first thing to do is to formulate what the ideal system should aim for, what to maximise,
Profit or stability, or profit stability,
or minimise risk, or risk stability - a lot of questions and I think there will be even more opinions.
Well let's have a thought, what are the properties of an EA that bring it closer to the notion of "ideal"?
OK, let's get started. Actually, it is probably impossible to build a perfect EA. But first I will list its properties as I understand them. And then let's move on to the quasi-ideal as some approximation of the ideal.
1. Does not have a single arbitrary parameter that is not justified logically.
2. Always trades in profit, i.e. no balance drawdowns.
3. Each transaction is accompanied by the price change only in profit, i.e. there is no drawdown of equity below the balance. The price, already after the transaction has gained some paper profit, can go against the transaction, but never making the transaction unprofitable.
4. The previous point has a corollary: the strategy remains profitable even with an extreme MM.
I'll stop for now as it's time for bed.
1. Does not have a single arbitrary parameter that is not logically justified.
2. Always trades in profit, i.e. no balance drawdown.
3. Each transaction is accompanied by the price change only in profit, i.e. there is no drawdown of equity below the balance. The price, already after the transaction has gained some paper profit, can go against the transaction, but never making the transaction unprofitable.
4. The previous point has a corollary: the strategy remains profitable even with an extreme MM.
Too perfect....)))
Yes, too much, I agree. We'll soon move on to approximating the ideal.
You don't read the earlier posts very well. I have already said that in the tester, I will draw a straight line from the bottom left to the top right corner.
Why? You trust the tester, there is a forward test, there is a demo, there is a real, there is monitoring of both demo and real.
You trust the tester - "these questions are not for me", because there is optimization in the tester.
There is no need to make fools of everyone around, because everyone has already seen enough ellipsoids or straight ups. And the practice is completely different.
Are you a forex theorist? Well, then move the pure theory, without EAs.
Who prevents you from not memorizing the history?
Correct testing usually does not differ much from reality.
MT4 has some problems with history of quotes, i.e. if you do the tests on different computers, the results may be different.
This is one of the reasons why MT4 EAs are entry level tools - not enough reliable technology.
In other words, you have to use it very carefully - in addition to market risks, there are also technological risks.
Yes, too much, I agree. We'll soon move on to approximating the ideal.
We need to define the 'boundary' conditions. That is to say, the disadvantages of the system that we are willing to tolerate, roughly speaking.
1. Profit maximisation inevitably leads to increased risk.
2. Stability of profit growth is worth putting "at the top of the agenda", with a conscious and controlled level of risk.
3) Minimizing risk is meaningless without a stable profit margin, because systems with minimal risk are seldom acceptably profitable.
4. I support Mathemat about system parameters. As almost always there are parameters which can be excluded from a system without special influence on main qualities.
5. "2. Always trades at a profit, i.e. no balance drawdowns." This is what I would like, but it is realistically very difficult to achieve.
That's about right. Isn't that what you're looking for in terms of trading strategies-tactics?
It seems that only Victor has reached the pinnacle of knowledge and enlightenment. I'm no match for him. :)
The learning process is endless for me...
In general, a person who does not acknowledge his right to make a mistake from the start is incapable of comprehending new knowledge, because we are all human and it is human to make mistakes :)Did you read the beginning of this thread? :)
You mentioned the criterion - I only pointed out that the Adaptive EA fits this criterion.
"Angela wrote >>
1). One of the most important principles underlying ITS I believe its ability to self-learn and adapt to the changing phases of the market. And the second, 2). The minimum number of externally adjustable parameters.
At the link, there is an adaptive algorithm that satisfies your criteria:
1. ability to learn and adapt
2. only 1 optimizable parameter
The first thing to do is to formulate what the ideal system should aim for, what to maximise,
profit or stability or stability of profit,
or minimise risk, or risk stability - a lot of questions and I think there will be even more opinions.
The term "stability" that has been "laughed at" so much has come in handy :)Who's stopping you from not remembering the story?
Correct testing usually does not differ much from reality.
MT4 has some problems with quote history, i.e. if you do tests on different computers, the results may be different.
This is one of the reasons why MT4 EAs are entry level tools - the technology is not robust enough.
I.e. it is necessary to use very carefully - apart from market risks there are also technological ones.
Victor, I have "eaten a dog in a pack" on optimizing and testing, as they say, so I'm telling you that I can "draw" any balance curve in the tester. I agree that in a normal system the tests do not differ much from a real trade.
But the proof of the viability of a system is always sufficient if it works on an account, preferably a real one.
I've been testing my systems on real accounts for a couple of years already, and I've had great success with it, i.e. "pitfalls" of testing, optimization, etc. What is your level in testing, I do not know, so it will always be necessary and sufficient condition for me to monitor either real, or demo, or certified static.
The tester results are unacceptable, at least to me. Sorry.