Registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship July 2017 . - page 90
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
The ancient Greek "idiot" also had two meanings. The second meaning is exactly the one used today. And the first meaning is not more indigenous, but obsolete, and has been replaced by more modern terms these days.
Quoting in scraps is not civilised at all.
Full quote of the definition:
Idiot(fromthe Greekἰδιώτης, "individual, private person; ignorant person"):
Well, it's hard to argue about which concept was earlier or later.
You and I understand how history is often rewritten, documents are not always preserved, libraries burn, and archives are burned down even in our own time.
--
But the fact that people who gave and still give a damn about politics are known to be idiots.
Then there is nothing to worry about. It is not important what is the value of fv, it is important what is the value in relation to other competitors, if it is more, it is better. Coefficient 0.5 doesn't allow fv to make distortions in the formula that make the results meaningless, the main indicator is balance and that's why it has coefficient 1.5, the second essential indicator is drawdown with coefficient 1, while fv only slightly changes the overall picture - if fv is maximal among the participants, then it gives only 0.5 points out of 3 possible.
Andrei, I don't even know how else to explain it, so that you can get into it and see that there is something to worry about.
One more finger-pointing attempt :)
Example: 2 leading participants. The balance is the same - let it be 15000. The drawdown is the same - let it be 8%. One has a recovery factor of 0, the other has 500.
As a result, when calculated by the formula (as it is now), the first participant with the recovery factor 0 will get 2.501 points, and the second one will get 3.000 points. And it will turn out that the winner will take second place.
Similarly, the rest of the distribution of places would be flawed.
With this explanation, one can see that there is something to worry about?
Andrei, I don't even know how else to explain it, so that you can get into it and see that there is something to worry about.
One more finger-pointing attempt :)
Example: 2 leading participants. The balance is the same - let it be 15000. The drawdown is the same - let it be 8%. One has a recovery factor of 0, the other has 500.
As a result, when calculated by the formula (as it is now), the first participant with the recovery factor 0 will get 2.501 points, and the second one will get 3.000 points. And it will turn out that the winner will take second place.
Similarly, the rest of the distribution of places would be flawed.
With this explanation, one can see that there is something to worry about?
Why on earth would the second with a higher fv not be the winner, all other things being equal? Where do your figures show that the first with fv 0 is better than the second with fv 500?
Let me give you an analogy. Let's pretend we're trying to identify the best car amongst the entire global car industry. We need criteria for selection and these criteria are approved as they are. Criteria, let's suppose, define a winner among crossovers, so there is such a formula, and you are saying that it is necessary to look for the best car among sedans.... It is possible to search among sedans as well, but it will be already other song... What's not to understand?
Andrei, I don't even know how else to explain it, so that you can get into it and see that there is something to worry about.
One more finger-pointing attempt :)
Example: 2 leading participants. The balance is the same - let it be 15000. The drawdown is the same - let it be 8%. One has a recovery factor of 0, the other has 500.
As a result, when calculated by the formula (as it is now), the first participant with the recovery factor 0 will get 2.501 points, and the second one will get 3.000 points. And it will turn out that the winner will take second place.
Similarly, the rest of the distribution of places would be flawed.
With this explanation, one can see that there is something to worry about?
By the way, yes, theoretically the recovery factor may be 0 and the participant makes 12 trades without a single minus. I was going to say that too, but I was beaten to it.
By the way, yes, theoretically the recovery factor could be = 0 if a participant makes 12 trades without a single loss. I was going to say that too, but I was beaten to it.
If the drawdown is 0, the fv is not 0 but infinity, i.e. the maximal possible drawdown would be 0.5 out of 3 possible points.
I don't know what to do with them, but I don't know what to do with them.
Why on earth is the second with a higher fv not a winner, all other things being equal? Where do your figures show that the first with fv 0 is better than the second with fv 500?
All participants in the table (with the yellow marker) that I have cited do not have a single minus. They all now have fv=0 in the table. They are all now 0.5 points short in the rankings.
Not out of sheer fright, but by your formulas it works out that way.
I was just thinking and found a discrepancy between how it should be and how it is counted in the table.
All the contestants in the table I cited do not have a single minus. They all now have fv=0 in the table. They are all now 0.5 points short in the rankings.
Not out of sheer fright, but by your formulas it turns out that way.
If fv=0 with already existing trades, then it's not an error in the formula, but in obtaining the data. Vitaly will come and sort out the mess.
If fv = 0 with already existing trades, then it's not a mistake in the formula, it's a mistake in getting the data. Vitaly will come and sort out the outrage.
If PF = 0, Vitaly apparently takes 0
And Cyril is talking about what will happen - if zero comes into the formula.
This can of course be corrected.
If PF = 0, Vitaly apparently takes 0
And Cyril is talking about what will happen - if zero comes into the formula.
This, of course, can be corrected.
I think Vitaly just parses the MQL site with the signal.
The recovery factor there is 0 in case there are no losing trades, which does not seem quite correct to me.
Further the error is inherited.
As I said before, I have a proposal for adjusting the calculation formula that considers all the problems described.
I will describe it if I need to.
If PF = 0, Vitaly apparently takes 0
And Cyril is talking about what will happen - if zero comes into the formula.
This can of course be corrected.