Is the advisor suitable for real life? - page 9

 
Svinozavr >>:

Алексей, все равно все упирается в не-хочу-говорить-в-чего. Впрочем, это страшное слово ты уже произнес.

Here I'm wondering what the word is - context, Bernoulli, prediction or whatever... I don't seem to have uttered the first one, let it be in your thread only.
Generally speaking, trying to measure and select tactics (MM there or trading signals) using trade results (balance curve) not only implies saying that scary word, but nullifies profits because the cost of measuring (loss) outweighs the profit. Remember "smart guy"? )))

I remember, I remember. But with him - yes, he trades a pure balance and nothing else. But the signals here are not phonetic.

Why should we assume that the balance curve has inertia? ))) Can we go back to that?
It's not from anything. But the balance curve often has different statistical properties than the original quotes.

Nah, let it be inertia. But then maybe just don't trade at all, rather than reducing the lot?

The author has already answered you - to simplify the accounting.

 
Svinozavr >>:

Угу. Я предполагал такой ответ. Но из этого НЕ следует, "что тенденции кривой баланса показывают более общую, глобальную и серьёзную закономерность рынка, чем непосредственно сама цена. И это состояние обладает инерцией."

Из этого следует только то, что цена сама по себе обладает инерцией. А о дискуссии по этому поводу только глухослепые на Марсе не в курсе. Не хотелось бы к этому сводить.

(голосом кинопровокатора) Может, это как раз и будет служить доказательством, что инерция все-таки есть? )))


Well, thechanalysis works, doesn't it?
It is clear that everything is inherent in the price, but the analysis of the balance curve allows you to assess not the price directly, but the market as a whole, i.e. its "trendiness", breakdown, etc., for example. A different time scale.
After all, there is the arcsinus theorem, and there are trends even in rows with SB. Why do we care why the system's returns have suddenly risen sharply? There is a trend in returns - we use it. The end of the trend in returns can be determined from the usual tehanalysis over the balance sheet curve.
 
Mathemat >>:
Вот и гадаю, что за слово - контекст, Бернулли, прогноз или еще что...
Mathemat >>:
........
On the other hand, one can't help but say that Dserg has pointed out something to hold on to. And no stationarity seems to be required here.
........
??? Oh, is it?
===
And Bernoulli was mentioned...
 
The balance sheet curve is in any case some kind of functional transformation of the quote stream. Vince has still got that one.
(Erased. The rest was nonsense.)
 
TheXpert >>:
Мало того, есть подозрение, что история сделок непредсказуема только для стратегий, которые сливают по спреду, а любая стратегия, которая действительно имеет статдостоверный уклон в любую сторону, может быть улучшена путем анализа истории сделок (любой, вплоть до 1) ограниченной длины.

A small correction. This is only true if the property is not present over the entire time frame being traded. I.e. for example, pips cannot be improved in this way.

 
Any strategy that does have a statistically significant bias in either direction can be improved by analyzing the transaction history (any, up to 1) of a limited length. <br / translate="no">
This is where the catch is in proving the statistical validity of the "statistically valid" bias.
 
Mathemat >>:
Вот тут вся загвоздка - в доказательстве статдостоверности "статдостоверного" уклона.

:) That's the point - there's no need to prove the usefulness of the strategy.

 
The trick is that creating a strategy with a "highly bifurcated" balance curve is not such a difficult task.
One is tempted to say that it will also work on a Wiener process... but that's self-defeating.
 
And I see this method of balance trading as a kind of additional indicator - i.e. as a filter. And this filter, as was said before, works only on trend systems! It can even be easily checked by placing the Expert Advisor on timeframes characterized by smaller trend patterns. I think that with every smaller timeframe the performance of the EA will correspondingly decrease.
Pips are not trend-following systems. In my case my Expert Advisor is intermediary as opposed to the Pips one. I.e. I allow my profits to grow as a trend EA but under certain conditions my Expert Advisor works as a Pipswise one (by profit but not by time of deal holding). This is why I have single losing trades but very large ones. And this is all to say, I haven't checked, but I think the balance trading approach for my EA will be useless. Simply because it is not a system that works behind the trend. So I'll finish where I started and agree with the previous statements that it's the same indicator, but working on the derivative (which in most cases is bad) of the price of quotes - the account balance!
 
And here is a demonstration of what I have said, which is also interesting to the topic of EA performance in the future on this forum.

The first report is from the beginning of this year! (trading fixed 1 lot)
Second - from the beginning of 2009, including the period in the first report (trade fixed 0.1 lot - reduced lot size is forced to demonstrate the work, because when working with 1 lot drain under 200%).

FIRST REPORT:
BE23
FOREX-Server (Build 225)

SymbolEURUSD (Euro vs US Dollar)
Period1 Hour (H1) 2010.01.03 22:00 - 2010.03.17 23:00 (2010.01.01 - 2010.03.18)
ModelAll ticks (most accurate method based on all smallest available timeframes)
Parameters
Bars in history2266Modelled ticks506875Modeling quality90.00%
Chart mismatch errors5
Initial deposit10000.00
Net profit9448.80Total profit11328.80Total loss-1880.00
Profitability6.03Expected payoff192.83
Absolute drawdown824.40Maximum drawdown1831.30 (16.64%)Relative drawdown16.64% (1831.30)
Total trades49Short positions (% win)27 (100.00%)Long positions (% win)22 (86.36%)
Profitable trades (% of all)46 (93.88%)Loss trades (% of all)3 (6.12%)
Largestprofitable trade1536.90losing transaction-690.00
Averageprofitable deal246.28losing trade-626.67
Maximum numbercontinuous wins (profit)26 (6216.40)Continuous losses (loss)1 (-690.00)
MaximumContinuous Profit (number of wins)6216.40 (26)Continuous loss (number of losses)-690.00 (1)
Averagecontinuous winnings12Continuous loss1