How is the expected payoff calculated? - page 6
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
In short, if you get an MO of 5 pips on 300 trades, that's a very good result.
If you even get 2 pips, that's good.
Most of them have it below 0.
You are focusing on the number of trades. Not just the number of points, but the number of trades. Why 300? And not 200? I'm not being picky, I just want to understand. You may have written 500. Of course, the more trades the better. If you write 300 trades, I think that this is the number of deals you think is optimal for testing. If so, you must consider all IO if there are 300 deals.
You prioritise the number of trades. Not just the size of the MO, but at a certain number of trades. Why 300? And not 200? I'm not being picky, I just want to understand. You may have written 500. Of course, the more trades the better. If you write 300 trades, I think that this is the optimal number of deals for testing. If so, you may consider that you have 300 deals.
The more the better. And no one will tell you exactly how many grams you need. Set the threshold yourself.
The more the better. No one will tell you exactly how many grams you need. Set the threshold yourself.
Why won't anyone tell you, someone said that the optimum is MO =2. Why can't anyone say how many trades to test on? That's probably a question for the mathematicians. I think they are the ones who set "MO=2". What's the problem with specifying the optimal number of trades?
Why can't anyone say, someone said that the optimal number of trades is MO =2. Why can't anyone say on how many trades to test. Most likely this is a question for the mathematicians. I think they are the ones who set "MO=2". What is the problem with specifying the optimal number of trades?
No one, no "mathematicians" have established anything like that.
The more MO, the better.
No one, no "mathematicians" have set anything like that up.
The bigger the MO, the better.
With all due respect. More relative to what? Why no more than 100 or no more than 50? For some reason you think 5 pts is good. Why didn't you write that 20 points is good. Of course, the more the better, but there is a minimum acceptable threshold. Once we reach that threshold, we realise that TC is a complete mess. You say it's MO=2. Why not MO = 1. Just because 2>1? You can't evaluate a result if there is no evaluation criterion.
All due respect. More relative to what? Why not more than 100 or not more than 50? For some reason you think 5 pips is good. Why didn't you write that 20 points is good. Of course, the more the better, but there is a minimum acceptable threshold. Once we reach that threshold, we realise that TC is a complete mess. You say it's MO=2. Why not MO = 1. Just because 2>1? You can't evaluate a result if there is no evaluation criterion.
Explanation. The minimum threshold is zero.
But with MO less than two spreads the system becomes too vulnerable to the quality of order execution, which in practice may be worse than in testing.
And 20p per trade on average is H.H. Andersen's fairy tale.
There is no problem at all. You are asking the right questions. If you want to understand it, remember matstatistics and do some rough calculations.
Roughly speaking, simulate a series of, say, 1000 deals with more or less realistic parameters. And try to imagine what will happen if the ratio of profitable to unprofitable trades changes slightly. How that would affect the MO of the trade, the profit factor, the recovery factor, etc.
You can, of course, not count all this, but just simulate on a large number of series of trades. This will require some work, but at least you will feel why alarger number of trades allows you to rely on a more reliable estimate of all parameters of the system.
There is no problem at all. You are asking the right questions. If you want to understand it, remember matstatistics and do some rough calculations.
Roughly speaking, simulate a series of, say, 1000 deals with more or less realistic parameters. And try to imagine what will happen if the ratio of profitable to unprofitable trades changes slightly. How that would affect the MO of the trade, the profit factor, the recovery factor, etc.
You can, of course, not count all this, but just simulate on a large number of series of trades. This will require some work, but at least you will feel why alarger number of trades allows you to count on a more reliable estimate of all system parameters.
And 20p per trade on average is H.H. Andersen's fairy tales.
With all due respect. More relative to what? Why no more than 100 or no more than 50? For some reason you think 5 points is a good thing. Why didn't you write that 20 points is good. Of course, the more the better, but there is a minimum acceptable threshold. Once we reach that threshold, we realise that TC is a complete mess. You say it's MO=2. Why not MO = 1. Just because 2>1? You can't evaluate a result if there is no evaluation criterion.
Yes, that's not him talking. It's market conditions speaking.
It's just that the number 2 here means the mid-contractor stated spread. Previously, when the cp spread was 5 old pts, you would have been told: MO=5