Is it possible to code an EA for MT4, which would trade on the real as in the tester using control points? - page 8
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
1. If you open at opening prices in the tester, the opening prices are always available in any model, just as they are in the real world. As soon as you make an opening at prices unknown in the real, but available in the model by reference points, you will immediately see the difference in profit.
2) You can easily create at least 1000% per month in the tester. But it won't work in real life. It will be a 100% fraud.
Thanks, but, I'll think about it some more. :)
If I wanted to ask where I could get some advice about the trawl function, I would not get it because of error 1, I can't see where it is hidden, the main thing is that all is straight in the buoy, but sell spoils the log by its shouting, although it does not affect the work, but it's unpleasant ... :)
Happy holidays! :)
Thanks, but, I'll think about it some more. :)
A, where you can advise you can show the function trawl, and the hair is already standing on end because of bug 1, I do not catch where it is hidden, the main thing in the buoy, all straight and, sell spoils the magazine his shouting, although the work is not affected, but unpleasant ... :)
Happy holidays! :)
1. Don't break your head ;)
2. error one know what error one means? Don't try to change price 100 to price 100 - there will be error 1
3. Thank you, and you :)but, mirroring is hard to reverse, although it's supposed to be a level playing field (like a casino).
The odds are unequal because of the commission. In order to turn around a losing EA, it must drain more than two spreads per trade on average. Then it will be zero. If he loses more, all the profits are yours.
The odds are unequal because of the commission. In order to turn around a losing EA, it must drain more than two spreads per trade on average. Then it will be zero. If he loses more, all the profits are yours.
Even looking at extensive comparative statistics on casino winnings, you do not have to look far, on our topic (Forex) and similar institutions (like this) - Forex trading (let's call it so) of all such takes away most of the money from the players (over 70%), while in the casinos, win about half. It's like a confirmation of my arguments and observations that laid out above, although without the statistics can be seen with the naked eye. :) I think this is because such a system is much easier to inconspicuously sharpen on a permanent loss than in the casino or slot machines (it's easier to check and prove fraud).This is not about spreads, spreads is a minnow that you can not pay attention to (heavy crosses are not involved), the spread may play a role when the owl works on the razor. The spread may play an important role when the owls are working on the edge. It is a constant struggle for survival, and the system swallows all the initiatives with enviable ease, without any effort, reciprocally, as easily as the system, you can never make a U-turn in its direction. It's not as smooth as it looks either.:)
This is not about spreads, spreads is a minuscule thing that you do not pay attention to (heavy crosses are not involved), spread may play a role when the owls are working on the blade....
This is a misconception. The spread is the reason why clients lose money and brokerage companies make money.
At all kinds of courses they usually say that spread is only for pipers and long-term traders do not care about spread....
Liar.
Even looking at extensive comparative statistics on casino winnings, you do not have to look far, on our topic (Forex) and similar institutions (like this) - Forex trading (let's call it so) of all such takes away most of the money from the players (over 70%), while in the casinos, win about half. It's like a confirmation of my arguments and observations that laid out above, although without the statistics can be seen with the naked eye. :) I think this is because such a system is much easier to inconspicuously sharpen on a permanent loss than, say, a casino or slot machines (it's easier to check and prove fraud).This is not about spreads, spreads are a minuscule thing that you can largely ignore (we're not talking about heavy crosses), spreads can play a role when the owls are working on a blade. The spread may play a role when the owls are working on the edge. It is a constant struggle for survival, and the system swallows all the initiatives with enviable ease, without any effort, reciprocally, as easily as the system, you can never make a U-turn in its direction. It's not as smooth as it looks either.:)
Martin is more or less working fine, only I decided to push the aggressive trading, you see the greed pushes to such steps. :)
I have been working on this set for a long time, but I have not seen any changes, so I decided to work with them, because it is faster and the new one has a different picture. But, I have build set on ticks, because I have decided to work with them, because it is faster, but new set on ticks run gave a completely different picture, which is not comparable to life. :) So decided to get to the tester with the checkpoints to work out what was the reason for the changed difference in runs.
Greed ruins a broker, you can not ask for unreal returns from forex, they should be comparable to the returns of a real business or so. For example, in my shop I keep the goods for 10000 dollars, to receive daily total net profit $ 10 and this output I'm satisfied, while I risk not to sell on time, some perishable and / or having a limited shelf life, goods for about $ 2000 (think - drawdown on the term Forex). Hence, temporary drawdown is an attribute of any commercial activity. By analogy, if you have a deposit of 10K and settle for 10 dollars every day, it is difficult to imagine how you can lose on Forex. But we want to get much more - that's what all the woes and frustrations are about, I think. We need to get down to earth, look around and set realistic goals for EAs, that's the conclusion I've come to.
Happy New Year to everyone!
It's more realistic for stability, thanks, good comparison. :)
Here you can choose as a small stable income and as if justified risk, just decided to play that will come out of it, how realistic to move in this direction(and to what extent). :)
And opening a position on a zero bar is as good as it gets. And all the signals from the first/second bar will be old and irrelevant. And again, there will be complaints that the company has been cheated, robbed and robbed by Metaquotes with its "lying" tester.
A man cannot understand that it is impossible to know the price on the zero bar in advance. The opening price is known only at the moment of opening. What to say about the High and Low, on which he is so insistently trying to trade.
And all the explanations that this testing model is only needed to debug the logic to the programmer, not to the trader for debugging the moments to enter the market, he does not want to hear. That's what he "should" do. This is just because the tester shows profit in such a way, but in a more close to the real cases, his Expert Advisor pours atrociously in the tester. So his inferences become that it's not the advisor that needs to be changed - the rules of trading - but trying to simulate trading on unknown data in advance. He should go to the Battle of the Extra Sexes on TNT, not to auto-trading.
I understood the difference in running by points and by ticks, so I looked at it from the other side - carefully compared the work of owl by points and by ticks. It follows, that owl uses different settings parameters with points than with ticks (why the tester changes the settings?), corrected this difference in settings and got similar running by ticks. :)
It turns out that if we take into account the difference in changes of settings and make them in the code, then the owl can be modified so that it would trade on the real as well as on control points in the tester, or simpler to make these changes in the set. :)
Good luck, gentlemen! :)
I realized the difference in the run on points and ticks, came to this question from another side - carefully compared the work of owl on points and ticks, it turns out that the point owl works on the other settings than on ticks (why the tester changes the settings?), corrected in the settings of this difference and got a similar run on ticks. :)
It turns out that if you take into account the difference in the change of settings and make changes in the code, then you can make owl that would trade on a real world as well as a checkpoint in the tester, or easier - make these changes in the set. :)
Good luck, gentlemen! :)