Registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship July 2017 . - page 104
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
Petros, no one is changing the rules.
Corrected:
1) An error discovered in the source data for the contestants' score formulas, the source of which is the MQL website. The error results in stealing a contestant with losing trades by 0.5, i.e... makes the Score(Recovery Factor)=0.
2) An inconsiderate substitution of the Sharpe Ratio (normalised Score) from the exponentially increasing Recovery Factor score without first normalising it.
3) The consequence of point 2, which allows the situation, that closing all trades in profit and one trade on the minimum loss to get a fantastically high value of the recovery factor (which in reality will 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
It is not.
Whoever trades without a loss, they will either have a small gain or a large drawdown, which will compensate for the large FS value. But, whoever has a big gain with a small drawdown, then let him be the winner too.
And if the problem is zero, who will remain without a loss, let him make a fictitious loss of -0.01.
And at the next contest we can add that it is forbidden to trade without losses :)
Sergei, somehow that doesn't seem to be it.
Let's have a look at the bill.
Where did the number 8.70 come from?
That question should be sent to the developers.
This question should be sent to the developers.
Guys, read my posts carefully. I described everything there, including why there are such figures.
The formula for the recovery factor turns out to be such a figure.
Only one of the components -"Maximum relative drawdown on the balance" is not specified anywhere separately, but it is applied in this formula.
Guys, read my posts thoughtfully. I have described everything there, including why the figures are so high.
The formula for the Recovery Factor produces this figure.
Only one of the components -"Maximum relative drawdown on the balance" is not specified anywhere separately, but it is applied in this formula.
You can see from the image that increment =150.49, PF =8.70
We divide: 150.49/8.7 =17.29 As the result, the maximal relative drawdown is ~17
Something doesn't add up.
Maybe we should callRashid UmarovI assumed thatminBalance and minDrawdown are different for each account. And therefore they will be different for different accounts.
And I think this is the right approach.
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.
Oleg, the application of these formulas is not suitable for what you are describing.
These formulas allow you to understand what place the value of a particular participant among the values of all participants on a scale where all the values are plotted. Not a place in the sense of 1,2,3, but a numerical value between 0 and 1.
They are designed precisely for the relative comparison of one indicator to others out of the total.
i.e. For balance: the participants' balances are placed on a straight line in proportion to the value. The worst value is taken as 0 and the best value as 1. Then the ratio of the length of the segment from 0 to the value of a particular participant is simply measured.
This is the meaning of these formulas. To normalize the range of values and subtract from (individual participant value)-(minimum value) in the numerator, and calculate the range proper by subtracting from (maximum value)-(minimum value) in the denominator.
It's the same for other components, but since for the drawdown "the bigger the value the worse", we subtract the obtained value from one to invert the result.
To understand the meaning of formulas you don't need to ask anyone. You have to read them.
From the image, you can see that increment =150.49, PF =8.70
Divided: 150.49/8.7 =17.29 The resulting maximum relative drawdown is ~17
This doesn't add up.
Probably need to callRashid Umarov into the threadHow do you know it doesn't add up? Do you have something to compare it to?
I did and... I did. If you look for the right thing to compare it to, it will add up. Download my account history and find where the "Maximum Relative Balance Drawdown" of $17.3 was reached.
Oleg, the use of these formulas is not appropriate for what you are describing.
These formulas allow you to understand what place a particular participant's value takes among the values of all participants on a scale where all the values are plotted. Not a place in the sense of 1,2,3, but a numerical value between 0 and 1.
They are designed precisely for the relative comparison of one indicator to others out of the total.
i.e. For balance: the participants' balances are placed on a straight line in proportion to the value. The worst value is taken as 0 and the best value as 1. Then the ratio of the length of the segment from 0 to the value of a particular participant is simply measured.
This is the meaning of these formulas. To normalize the range of values and subtract from (individual participant value)-(minimum value) in the numerator, and calculate the range proper by subtracting from (maximum value)-(minimum value) in the denominator.
It's the same for other components, but since for the drawdown "the bigger the value the worse", we subtract the obtained value from one to invert the result.
To understand the meaning of formulas you don't need to ask anyone. You have to read them.
One should not ask "To understand the meaning of formulas" by those who read them, but to reveal the intended meanings by those who wrote them. I am sure that in fact one does not correspond to the other.
The question should not be "To understand the meaning of the formulas" by those who read them, but to identify the intended meaning by those who wrote them. I am sure that in fact one does not correspond to the other.
Oleg, these formulas are standard and universally used.
You can find similar formulas in many places, for example, in the documentation for almost any Tender (whether public or commercial), where participants' performance is "weighed/normalized" and then compared to identify with whom the customer will enter into a contract. The difference will mainly be in the coefficients (i.e. the weight of one or another parameter - importance from the customer's point of view).
And it seems to me that they have already asked - the answer was that they were simply offered these and that they did not write them themselves. At least that is how I understood their answer.
But it would be worthwhile to clarify it once again :) Here I am always "for".
Oleg, these formulas are standard and ubiquitous.
You can find similar formulas in many places, e.g. in the documentation for almost any Tender (whether public or commercial), where participants' performance is "weighted/normalised" and then compared to identify with whom the customer will conclude the contract. The difference will mainly be in the coefficients (i.e. the weight of one or another parameter - importance from the customer's point of view).
And it seems to me that they have already asked - the answer was that they were simply offered these and that they did not write them themselves. At least that is how I understood their answer.
But it would be worthwhile to clarify it once again :) Here I am always "for".
"they were just offered these and didn't write them" --- who offered them? really from above? ;))
Give me your version of the definition of "Efficiency" for a single account. Given that "Efficiency" is a standard concept and is universally used.
"they were just offered them and didn't write them themselves" --- who offered them? from above? ;))
Give your version of the definition of "Efficiency" for a single account. Given that "Efficiency" is a standard concept and universally used.
The best efficiency is the ratio of the current state of funds to the initial state).