Optimisation results differ from single tests on them - 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
...
m1 to m15 is the most suitable for testing an EA working on n1, and even more important if EA is closing on tp and sl.
There is a brokerage company where the minute history is only for the current year... So why don't you try sova from 2000 till now on H1 at least... :-)
For it says: "There tf: NULL, PERIOD_H1 "
...result is the same - mismatch....
Waiting for your tech support, I'm used to what I know, but here you see.............
Check - Are market entries random?
If yes, no questions asked... :-)
There is a DC where the minute history is only for the current year... so test the sovas from 2000 to the present at least on H1... :-)
For they write: "There's tf: NULL, PERIOD_H1 "...
linking the history to a DT is a self-deception.
the rigid linking of history to DTs is self-defeating.
well, well - well, well... :-)
That's the right approach.
I have a problem myself at the moment. Until I can be sure that I can't solve it, I won't write to tech support or the forum.
Found a level where everything is chik-pok. First assumption is that the problem is because of RefreshRates();
But so far just a guess...
and we are so keen to get involved, to help ))))
Generally clear. Saved the takeprofit value in the object description on the chart, then used this value to set the takeprofit of a new trade - two-step trade opening. Transferred everything to common variables, testing and optimization now coincide. It turns out that in some special way in testing and optimization ...the objects are handled differently somehow miraculously...
All in all, well that ends well........
...it's just wonderful how objects are handled differently...
Anyway, all's well that ends well........