Registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship July 2017 . - page 103
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
Using minBalance as an example:
in the formula, minBalance is the balance of the participant who had the smallest balance among all participants after closing the trades at the end of the competition. For calculations over the course of the competition, the minimum current balance among the competitors at the time the indicators are calculated is simply taken.
Obviously, there is always one minimum balance at a certain moment of time. There cannot be two different minimum balances :)
Well, and in all your calculations the same error is repeated.
Have I explained it clearly?
P.S. Maybe I have not quite grasped the meaning of what you have written. Then describe what you wanted to show by these calculations.
I will tell you how I tried to grasp it:
Based on the text you wrote in the conclusion - "The score with the worst indicators is assigned the best values", I assumed that you were trying to model a system that would show the calculation of values (with the construction of graphs) of specific indicators based on formulas for participants of a particular competition. And on the basis of the resulting indicators you wanted to assess the fairness of the evaluation of results based on the proposed formulas. It is a good idea. All that is left to do is to correctly use the data of the participants of the particular competition. When substituting the data, you have made a mistake and incorrect result with a wrong conclusion.
Well, if you were going to use these formulas to compare results in different events, then the idea is actually meaningless, because these formulas are not designed for this purpose. When I saw that the values of minima and drawdown are different for the compared results in the place where they should be, I thought that perhaps you are using formulas where they shouldn't be.
I wrote about both of these options in the picture notes.
I assumed thatminBalance and minDrawdown values are different for each particular account. And therefore they will be different for different accounts.
And I think this approach is correct.
This parameter called "efficiency" by the organizers and determining (in their opinion) the "efficiency" of a single trader (mind you, not an interrelated team of traders, but exactly a single trader) should be autonomous, and not depend on the vagaries of trading of random neighbours, such as the contestants in the current contest.
But, in any case, it is necessary to clarify what exactly was prescribed by organizers when they were making formulas to calculate the index, in order to be able to speak about the same thing.
With such clarifications and explanations, let's simulate different situations and see what the results of the simulation will be.
So this is the recovery factor
For those who are off topic and have missed past posts - duplicate
Score =Gain/Drawdown
At the moment according to this formula the leader of the second nomination is #2
When hovering over the graph there is a tooltip and at the very bottom "Users"
For those who are not on topic and have missed past posts - duplicate
Score =Gain/Drawdown
At the moment according to this formula the leader of the second nomination is #2
When hovering over the graph there is a tooltip, and at the very bottom "Users"
You're like children.
Don't you understand that you can't change the rules during the competition !
You are like children.
Don't you understand that you can't change the rules during a competition !
You can't, but the rules were made up with a mistake that no one noticed before the competition started.
It's like dragging a dead horse across a crossing.
You can't make the rules, but they are made up with a mistake that no one noticed before the competition started.
It's like dragging a dead horse across a crossing.
You can't make the rules, but they are made up with a mistake that no one noticed before the competition started.
It's like dragging a dead horse across a crossing.
And you think you can find a better one during the competition than you had.
You shouldn't have made 2 nominations when you can't find a normal formula for one nomination.
Why, if dead horses make their way to the top at the signals, let you have that too.
And you think you can find a better one than you had during the competition.
You shouldn't have made 2 nominations when you can't find a normal formula for one nomination.
Why, if dead horses make their way to the top at the signals, so be it for you too.
OK, let's not change anything.
Let's calculate "Recovery Factor" autonomously, and thereby remove "0"
Replaced zeros with 20, also replaced everything over 20 with 20
Results before and after:
:-))) oh how I like the "after" option
You are like children.
Don't you understand that you can't change the rules during a competition?
Petros, nobody changes the rules.
The fixes are:
1) An error detected in the source data for the contestants' evaluation formulas, the source of which is the MQL website. The error leads to stealing of a contestant with losing trades by 0.5, i.e. it makes Score(Recovery Factor)=0.
2) Inadvertent replacement of the Sharpe Ratio (normalized indicator) in the initial formulas by the exponentially growing Recovery Factor indicator without its prior normalization.
3) The consequence of Item 2, which allows the situation, in which closing all trades in profit and one trade on the minimum loss would result in the fantastically high value of the recovery factor (which in fact would not reflect the quality of trading). But that is half the trouble. It leads to the fact that the Recovery Factor values of all other participants are kind of downgraded and look paltry in comparison to their value. So what now? Trading such a "sneakiest" is an example to others? Is that going to be a "Deserved Victory"? Phew phew
Vitaly, I don't understand why it's so complicated with substitutions, it's enough to divide value from growth column by value in drawdown column and you will get adequate value that corresponds to reality.
Sergey, somehow it doesn't seem to be the case.
Let's take a look at the account
Where did the figure 8.70 come from ?