Registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship July 2017 . - page 106
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
Strange how you do things, Lord...
;)))
As it turned out, "the forum-person with nickname Andrey Dik" is also the curator of this contest (it's been known recently, info from the organizer)
And what about this:"they were just offered to do it and they didn't write it themselves".
Were they or weren't they? did they or didn't they? did they or didn't they?
All in all, it's a tangled mess... ;)))
Oleg, come on :)
The formulas are all correct except for lack of normalization of PV before substitution in the formula and an error that has popped up at MQL. I have suggested andjustified the variant of correction (those who don't like figure 20 may change it to 30). As an alternative - to substitute the value of the logarithm of PV in the formula - I haven't announced it for fear of a chorus and all sorts of inappropriate ha-ha. No one offered objections with figures and calculations for the first option (when a person will try to justify and start to calculate everything for different situations, most of objections will disappear).
Organisers do not have to be good at maths. (Although it is desirable to have someone for such cases, with whom you can speak the language of mathematics.) Vitaliy is gradually getting the hang of it all by himself. When he is able to defend the decision in detail and not react to provocation, the decision will be made.
"Efficiency" is simply the name of the nomination. A prize in this category is awarded if you get the maximum score according to such-and-such formula ..... under such and such conditions.
No confusing tangles. Everything is more or less clear and it's going as it should be.
Everything will be fine :)
We have 11 participants who have not yet taken a loss, it's been a week.
And 486.67 is not embarrassing?
Does 486.67 bother you?
If you count not on the balance, but on equity, then the participant's FS=0.40%/2.89%=0.1384083044982699
And 486.67 is not confusing?
Vitaly, it seems I have not yet highlighted this point (obvious to me, but perhaps not understandable to someone):
PV=0 at the site in the absence of losses steals 0.5 points from "break-even"
while a very large FS (at least for one participant) steals almost 0.5 points fromall others.
Because without normalization their FS =2, 3, 5, 10 after substitution in the formula compared to the substitution of FS =500 or other huge number only under a microscope can be discerned.
But as a matter of fact, are the systems with FS=20 and FS=500 so much different, that everything is assigned to one and almost nothing to another?
I want to believe that common sense and a little mathematics will win out in the end :)
If we count not on the balance but on the equity, the participant's FS = 0.40%/2.89%=0.1384083044982699
Oleg suggested counting money, not interest, and the participant got 0.49
Vitaly, it seems I have not yet highlighted this point (obvious to me, but perhaps not understandable to anyone):
PV=0 at the site in the absence of losses steals 0.5 points from "break-even"
while a very large FS (at least for one participant) steals almost 0.5 points fromall others.
Because without normalization their FS =2, 3, 5, 10 after substitution in the formula compared to the substitution of FS =500 or other huge number only under a microscope can be discerned.
But as a matter of fact, are the systems with FS=20 and FS=500 so much different, that everything is assigned to one and almost nothing to another?
I'd like to believe that common sense and a bit of mathematics will win out in the end :)
We just need the right formula to calculate FS, and use it to calculate autonomously, rather than taking zeros from the signals
Oleg suggested counting money, not interest, and this participant got 0.49
The money is almost the same: 4.05/29.28=0.1383196721311475
The money is almost the same - 4.05/29.28=0.1383196721311475
I counted the gain on the balance sheet
You just need the right formula to calculate FS, and use it to calculate autonomously, rather than taking zeros from the signals
Not quite right.
The website correctly counts 486, for example. But when substituting without normalisation such FS into the formula the problems described remain.
I do not know how else to explain that the existing version of the formulas is sharpened for "normalized" values of input data that do not have sharp spikes.
For example the drawdown is limited from the bottom and from the top - everything is OK there.
The capital gain is also not infinite and it is not transformed from $1000 to $500 000 in one transaction.
With PV the song is different, as you see.
I personally believe that the proposed changes will not offend anyone and the rating will be more fair.
Accordingly, and participants will have an incentive not to hold the randomly obtained FS = 400, and not falling out beyond a reasonable maximum (eg 20 or 30) will begin to earn points and the other two components.
Now that would be a real competition for traders :)