Avalanche - page 439
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
But where in your link do you see a comparison of two pure tests of the TS with/without Martingale?
I only took your words in my previous post
lasso:
to pull out to a stable profit by martingale (with a sane range of lot steps) at least in the tester?
But because of gaps in history, and some inconsistencies in historical data, I do not fully trust the results of the tester
SZZY: read posts https://www.mql5.com/ru/users/renoshnik on the forum, and other members of the branch https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/126421, a lot of useful information, much more than in the branches about Lavina
In my previous post I only took your words as a reference.
But i have no doubts, that it is possible to take profit by any strategy in tester, but because of some holes in history, and some inconsistencies in historical data, i do not fully trust the tester's results
SZZY: read posts https://www.mql5.com/ru/users/renoshnik on the forum, and other members of the branch https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/126421, a lot of useful information, much more than in the branches about Lavina
Good precedent to prove or disprove this and similar claims in this particular thread.
Suggestion:
1) find an expert with a final expectation: -2 spread at constant lot=0.1 at ~5 years and number of deals ~2000, TF - M15.
2) to determine and use the MQ quotes imported from MT5 to fill the gaps.
3) To trust or not to trust the tester results - it doesn't matter, because it's an experiment.
4) You may use Martin with a reasonable range (for example from 0.1 lot to 1.2, the min step is 0.1), without changing the number of deals.
5) If the final MO is equal to +2 spreads (i.e. mirror the reverse of the option without Martin), even without paying attention to drawdowns,
then everyone, I'm sure everyone,
========================= WILL TAKE THEIR HAT OFF TO YOU ======================
p.s. conditions are negotiable.Suggestion:
4) you screw in Martin with a reasonable range (for example from 0.1 lot to 1.2, min step 0.1), without changing the number of trades.
I have no desire and time to cheat and make it fit on historical data with strategy tester - imho it's a waste of time, it gives no profit
i will try to find the code for you and i will send it to you on the PM, i have already drawn my own conclusions - the MM is more important than the rest.
I will try to find the code for you and send it to the PM, I've already made a conclusion for myself - MM is more important than everything else
I can't find the final version for the avalanche-based locker, here's the code, with which I started making the locker
but it's better to do lokers based on https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/8679 - much better results than Avalanche, the main thing is the right MM and take your time ;)
ZS: the code was just a quick sketch, the code can be written a bit more optimally
Well that's in the test...first with 100 per month, second pound per year.
Now running on wpc with occasional interventions, seems ok so far)
Who can help make improvements to the code?)
I have no desire and no time to fall back into self-deception and fitting on the history with a strategy tester - imho a waste of time, it does not give a profit
I will try to find the code for you and send it to you by PM, I have already drawn my own conclusions - MM is more important than the rest .
If MM is indeed primary and is so unshakable in its primacy, what is the problem with my suggestion?
Fitting? What? Martin steps?
---------------------
The tester is just a tool.
Self-deception is trying to apply Martingale, in any form, without answering the questions in my suggestion.
--------------------
I'm not against Martin, but you need to be clear about what you're doing.
Well such in the test...first with 100 per month, second pound per year.
Now it's running on the wpc with occasional interference, so far it seems ok)
Who can help to make improvements to the code?)
What are those weird zero lot positions you have in the attached file?
shit, raise an avalanche.
Instead of taking the time to read the material calmly, sensibly, carefully and thoughtfully, you start to get the wrong idea.
I don't want to see the topic sink into history, because new people come in and they are unlikely to go digging around there.
I just don't want the topic to sink into history, because new people are coming in and they are unlikely to go digging around in there.