Sparring on MetaQuotes-Demo demo accounts - page 116
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
Let's make it like the service - 30%. It's vital. More is stupid.
Yeah, it's vital. 30%.
Yes, vitally, 30%.
- Sarah, Sarah, where are you?
- It's Seema. What do you want?
- Sara, the bettors decided not to leave us without bread at breakfast! They've raised the drawdown to 30%!!!
- Semyon, you know it's not about the drawdown. :)
corrections:
1) Under the current rules, can a competitor with a final balance less than the starting balance become the winner (in any category)? It can. Need to be corrected.
2) Now calculate the Sharpe Ratio and the final score for the second nomination. Signals service and (Vitaly's table) will calculate the Sharpe Ratio taking into account the closed positions. There will be unclosed positions on Friday, we need to calculate the Sharpe Ratio manually, otherwise the values will be overestimated.
If not to give prize of 2 nominations in one hands, then theoretically we may get that the participant with bigger drawdown, for example 19% will get the second nomination than the participant who have taken the first nomination, 17% (i.e. more stable). Would this be fair?
corrections:
1) Under the current rules, can a competitor with a final balance less than the starting balance become the winner (in any category)? It can. Need to be corrected.
2) Now calculate the Sharpe Ratio and the final score for the second nomination. Signals service and (Vitaly's table) will calculate the Sharpe Ratio taking into account the closed positions. There will be unclosed positions on Friday, we need to calculate the Sharpe Ratio manually, otherwise the values will be overestimated.
If not to give prize of 2 nominations in one hands, then theoretically we may get that the participant with bigger drawdown, for example 19% will get the second nomination than the participant who have taken the first nomination, 17% (i.e. more stable). Would this be fair?
If not to give out a prize on 2 nominations in one hands, then theoretically, we can get that the second nomination will get the participant with greater drawdown, for example 19%, than the participant which have occupied the first nomination, 17% (i.e. more stable). Would this be fair?
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Each nomination has its own formula (fair enough) imho
PS. Let's listen to what others will say
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Each nomination has its own formula (fair enough) imho
Then you lose the meaning of the second nomination - "Safe".
PS. Let's hear what others have to say.
Yes, let's have your say, gentlemen.
How about calling this nomination not "Safety" but the Audience Choice Award? Then each contestant, during Saturday, will distribute 5 points between the contestants' signals. 5 points to this one, 4 points to that one, etc. Shall I write it down on the forum or send it to the organiser in person? But absolutely not insisting, just an opinion and an option.
And by points, a multi-currency grider with averaging and increased risk (like the one participant @Dimitar Manov has, if you remember) may easily win the 2nd nomination if there are no fails within a month. But is it safe?
That would defeat the purpose of the second nomination, "Safety."
Yes, let's have a say, gentlemen.
How about calling this nomination not "Safety" but the Audience Award?
Nah, no audience sympathy... Let's have a 20% drawdown and call the nomination 'risk control'.
Yes, I agree, the winner of either nomination cannot be with a balance lower than the starting balance.
Nah, no audience sympathy... Let's have a 20% drawdown and call the nomination "risk control".
Well, what do you say if the winner of the first category has better risk control? Should we give him a second prize?
Nah, no audience sympathy... Let it be a 20% drawdown and call the nomination 'risk control'.
Yes, I agree, the winner of any of the nominations cannot be with a balance lower than the starting balance.
Also true.