September registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship is now open - page 29
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
Make the rules set a fixed lot for all trades and all your problems will be solved. Yes, this will be a severe violation of money management and all the martin and pyramiding will be illegal, but there will be revealed all the beauty of entry and exit points - the basis of each strategy.
That's right, by the way. It's not about volumes, it's about the quality of manual or automatic trading. Drawdowns and equity are not going anywhere. The issue with Expert Advisors is though - their autolotage is adjusted programmatically, so how should we deal with this problem?
Make the rules set a fixed lot for all trades and all problems will be solved. In this case, we may face the problem of violation of money management and all martin and pyramiding will be illegal, but all the beauty of entry and exit points will be exposed - the basis of each strategy.
It won't work, you can open ten trades at the same time with a fixed lot.
And such a method as fractioning will also increase the total volume, and it's a lancet)
In addition, may be a strategy in which the volume of transactions proportional to the reliability of the signal (like if all stars align, then 100 percent or 1 lot, and if partially, then 1 percent or 0.01 lots)
not an option))
Three factors are important for us: final profit, risk (equity drawdown), and credibility (not random).
The first two are equity recovery factors while reliability is measured by the number of trades. Of course, I can apply the coefficient to these trades if simple multiplication does not do the trick, I don't know.
There is also a Z-account, it kind of measures reliability, maybe it can be attached in some way?
If you remember that RNG is a result that approximately corresponds (qualitatively, i.e. without taking into account the profit and loss values) to 50% of profitable on 50% of unprofitable
the trading quality can be considered by the ratio (amount of_profits)/(amount of_losses)
So, ifnumber_profits = 100%, andnumber_losses = 0%, it is a completely deterministic and not a random win.
Ifnumber_profits = 90%, andnumber_losses = 10%, then it is far from a random win.
etc. an appropriate scale for evaluating the quality of the trade can be introduced.
If you remember that RNG is a result that approximately corresponds (qualitatively, i.e. without taking into account the profit and loss values) to 50% of profitable on 50% of unprofitable
the trading quality can be considered by the ratio (amount of_profits)/(amount of_losses)
So, ifnumber_profits = 100%, andnumber_losses = 0%, it is a completely deterministic and not a random win.
Ifnumber_profits = 90%, andnumber_losses = 10%, then it is far from a random win.
etc. You can introduce an appropriate scale for evaluating the quality of trading.
I wrote a bot to order, there are ~25% profitable, but in the end the strategy brought a plus. Is this a bad TS?
I wrote a custom bot, there's ~25% profitability, but the strategy ended up being a plus. Is that a bad TS?
You either really don't know what I'm talking about or you're fooling around... for the umpteenth time...
What are you talking about? You want to make it fucking clear... and then it's, "Is this a bad TC?"...
Three factors are important to us: final profit, risk (equity drawdown), credibility (not random).
And only their combined consideration can say something about whether the TS is bad or good.
What I have offered for consideration may answer one of three questions - how random are the deals of a particular TS?(credibility(not random))
zy
And if the TS gives profitable only ~25%, but in the end the strategy brought a plus, in my opinion, it's a bad TS.
You either really don't know what I'm talking about, or you're making a fool of yourself... for the umpteenth time...
What are you talking about? You want to make it fucking clear... and it's "Is this a bad TC?"...
And only their combined accounting can tell us anything about whether it's a bad TC or a good one.
What I have proposed for consideration can answer one of the three questions posed -- how random are the transactions of a given TS?(credibility(not random))
zy
And if TS gives profitable only ~25%, but in the end the strategy brought a profit, in my opinion, it's a bad TS.
Oleg, judging by profitable/lossy trades is probably not the best idea in my opinion.
You can make 99% of profitable trades, and one losing one drains the entire deposit.
Oleg, judging by profitable/loss-making trades is probably not the best idea in my opinion.
You can make 99% of profitable trades, and one lossy one drains the entire deposit.
It is possible to lose. But do not you understand what we are talking about in general? Can you understand what we are talking about: when you buy a car, you evaluate several indicators that describe its quality, or you are satisfied with only one?
In fact in addition to this indicator, the third in number
3) reliability (not coincidentally)
there are two other indicators
1) ultimate profit
2) Risk (equity drawdown).
The total analysis of all three indicators will allow for a more complete evaluation of the TS.
I wrote a custom bot, there's ~25% profitability, but the strategy ended up being a plus. Is this a bad TS?
If the TP real or virtual is greater than SL, it will be, only rare profits can override frequent losses. Only with TP=SL, there is a point in such statistics
You can drain it. But don't you know what we're talking about? Can you understand what we are talking about: when buying a car, do you evaluate several indicators of its quality, or are you satisfied with one single indicator?
In fact in addition to this indicator, the third in number
3) reliability (not coincidentally)
there are two other indicators
1) ultimate profit
2) Risk (equity drawdown).
The total analysis of all three characteristics will allow for a more complete evaluation of the TS.
I 100% agree with that. The question was asked a long time ago: how to calculate all of them in the form of formulas?
I agree with this 100%. The question was very long ago: how do you calculate everything in the aggregate as formulas?
A long time ago I said that in order to "calculate everything in the aggregate in the form of formulas", one must first define what exactly should be calculated, i.e. what are the elements of this aggregate. Then it did not come to anything.
Having the components, putting them together is not difficult:
So
K = A*B*C
or
K = a*A + b*B + c*C
where
A, B, C -- individual trade figures
a, b, c are weighting coefficients
or put them into a more complex bundle.
Maybe now we will get somewhere.