Avalanche 6.2 - page 14

New comment
 
OlegTs:

put a trend indicator into wmlab advisor (first order of a trend group)

the result in 10 years on alpari micro

maximal lot 1.92 - 40 000 RUB drawdown, for the entire period there were only 5 lots 1.92, i.e. I can safely start with 50 000 RUB.

or on cents DTs...




Which indicator, if you don't mind me asking?
 
OlegTs:

put a trend indicator into wmlab advisor (first order of a trend group)

the result in 10 years on alpari micro

maximal lot 1.92 - 40 000 RUB drawdown, for the entire period there were only 5 lots 1.92, i.e. I can safely start with 50 000 RUB.

or on cents DTs...

Increase in 10 times the deposit for 10 years is about 25% per annum. If it is trading with minimal risks (max drawdown to 5-10%) then it is OK. In this case the drawdown of 40 000 at the initial deposit of 50 000 is little inspiring. Put such a TS on microreal to get 25% per annum from 10 or 100 $ per year? Are you kidding me?

:)

 
goldtrader:

A deposit increase of 10 times over 10 years is about 25% per annum. If it is trading with minimal risks (max drawdown to 5-10%) then it is OK. In this case the drawdown of 40 000 at the initial deposit of 50 000 is little inspiring. Would you put such a TS on microreal to get 25% p.a. of 10 or 100$ a year? Are you kidding?

:)

I disagree, we are talking about an avalanche, which means that if for 10 years there were only 5 open orders with a drawdown of 40 000, then the next lot of 3.84 is realistic, but difficult. I.e. we determine the maximal drawdown at 40 000. After that (since it is not desirable to increase the initial lot) we should withdraw money and open a new account at doubling. We open the first order with a delay in a certain amount of pips from the first order to avoid the global drawdown on all accounts simultaneously. Thus, if 1.92 works on one account, it will not happen to others because we will shift orders by pips. Here is the idea in brief. May be it is crazy, may be not, we will have to try. And no one abolished further optimization, I have not tried a dynamic channel yet... maybe we will be able to remove these 5 1.92...
 
OlegTs:
I disagree, we are talking about an avalanche, which means that if for 10 years there were only 5 open orders with drawdown of 40 000 then the next lot of 3.84 is realistic but difficult. I.e. we determine the maximal drawdown at 40 000. After that (since it is not desirable to increase the initial lot) we should withdraw money and open a new account at doubling. We open the first order with a delay in a certain amount of pips from the first order to avoid the global drawdown on all accounts simultaneously. Thus, if 1.92 works on one account, it will not happen to others because we will shift orders by pips. Here is the idea in brief. May be it is crazy, may be not, we will have to try. And no one abolished further optimization, I have not tried a dynamic channel yet... maybe we will be able to remove these 5 1.92...

I'm not talking about a perfect trader. it's like a spherical horse in a vacuum. I don't believe in a fully optimal strategy.

but i've come up with similar results.

I didn't stop there either.

 
OlegTs:
I disagree, we are talking about an avalanche, which means that if in 10 years there were only 5 orders open with a drawdown of 40,000, the next lot of 3.84 is realistic, but difficult. I.e. we determine the maximal drawdown at 40 000. After that (since it is not desirable to increase the initial lot) we should withdraw money and open a new account at doubling. We open the first order with a delay in a certain amount of pips from the first order to avoid the global drawdown on all accounts simultaneously. Thus, if 1.92 works on one account, it will not happen to others since we will shift orders by pips. Here is the idea in brief. May be it is crazy, may be not, we will have to try. And no one has canceled the further optimization, I haven't tried the dynamic channel yet, maybe we will manage to remove those 5 1.92...
Or maybe on a different currency?
 
khorosh:
How about another currency?
In short, there is a lot of work to be done:))))
 
I don't think you should particularly rely on a 10 year no-drain in the tester. It will not give a 100% guarantee in real life anyway. For me I define performance as the number of initial deposits made between failures. If we have two versions of an avalanche-based Expert Advisor and one of them fails once a month and between failures, for example, earns 4 initial deposits, while the second one earns 2 initial deposits between failures that occur on average each half year, then the first version is much more profitable, though it fails more often. So is it worth trying to achieve 10 years without losing at such a small earning? My last variant on real earned from 20.08.2010 almost 100%. I got my money back, now I can work more calmly.
 
khorosh:

naturally, that's what we're aiming for, and in 10 years, that's a statistic to think about.
 
OlegTs:
In short, there's a lot of work to be done:))))
I agree, I can't stop - I'm always upgrading things.
 
OlegTs:
I disagree, we are talking about an avalanche, which means that if in 10 years there were only 5 orders open with a drawdown of 40,000, the next lot of 3.84 is realistic, but difficult. I.e. we determine the maximal drawdown at 40 000. After that (since it is not desirable to increase the initial lot) we should withdraw money and open a new account at doubling. We open the first order with a delay in a certain amount of pips from the first order to avoid the global drawdown on all accounts simultaneously. Thus, if 1.92 works on one account, it will not happen to others because we will shift orders by pips. Here is the idea in brief. May be it is crazy, may be not, we will have to try. And no one has canceled the further optimization, I haven't tried the dynamic channel yet, maybe we will manage to remove these 5 1.92...
It's just you don't know how to test, believe a simple tester run with adjusted parameters. It's actually much worse than that.
1...78910111213141516171819
New comment