September registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship is now open - page 32
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
...
three factors are important to us: final profit, risk(equity drawdown), credibility(not random).
...
three factors:
A --- final profit
B --- risk (equity drawdown)
C --- credibility (not random)
Oleg avtomat:
K = a*A + b*B + c*C
where
A, B, C -- individual trade indexes
a, b, c --- weighting coefficients
Having reduced the factors to the unified scale, we can obtain the objective values of these factors according to each trader's trade.
Weights introduce subjectivity reflecting evaluator's preferences, i.e. what is more important and what is less important for him/her. Without any cunning, you can make them equal, or you can discuss and reveal your preferences.
I'll make my version today or tomorrow - let's see what happens.
three factors:
A --- final profit
B --- risk (equity drawdown)
C --- credibility (not random)
Bringing the factors to the unified scale, we can get quite objective values of these factors by trade of each trader.
Weights introduce subjectivity reflecting the evaluator's preferences, i.e. what is more important and what is less important for him/her. Without any cunning, you can make them equal, or you can discuss and reveal your preferences.
I will make my own version today or tomorrow - let's see what happens.
Thanks for the suggestions, we'll wait for the results
Thanks for the suggestions, let's wait for the result.
I think it would be a good idea to create a separate thread to jointly work out a "Composite_indicator of trader_quality". I foresee disagreements in assigning weighting coefficients - therefore, a compromise should be sought on this issue as well.
It should be placed in a separate branch because the index should be applicable in subsequent competitions, so it does not get lost in the depths of this branch, where it will not be found in a half a year.
Really leave it as it is. Everyone runs contests with the same set of qualifiers - like Sharpe. If you simplify things, then the point is these additional indicators like profit factor, recovery factor, deposit load, etc. I mean whatever formulas you come up with, the leader will remain the same. So there is no point.
What's wrong with the contest? Everyone is stomping around. A week ago the stats were the same as they were a week ago. Is the market in turmoil?
Each signal has a place number in the overall ranking of signals, can this number be used?
At least one BUT - mt4 and mt5 ratings do not overlap. What to do?
Composite indicator of trader's trading quality (for contests)
Based on the logic of the whole mechanics - the simpler the system, the more reliable it is. And there's no need to reinvent the wheel - everything has already been invented before you. Therefore, I suggest you take this rather cunning step to eliminate "craftiness" of some traders. We remove a certain amount (a fixed percentage, of course) of the best and worst results from the calculation of all indicators (except drawdown of course). This approach has long been used in many industries. Of course the calculations become more complicated. PS: I am writing for the last time because it seems that here it is not accepted to discuss ideas, but only to "fight publicly with each other".
The logic behind all mechanics is that the simpler the system, the more reliable it is. And there's no need to reinvent the wheel - everything has already been invented before you. Therefore, I propose to take quite a tricky step to eliminate "tricks" of some traders. We remove a certain amount (a fixed percentage, of course) of the best and worst results from the calculation of all indicators (except drawdown of course). This approach has long been used in many industries. Of course the calculations become more complicated. PS: I am writing last time as it seems it is not accepted here to discuss ideas, but only "bicker publicly with each other.
This can be done on concrete data.
The system I have proposed is very simple. Try to get to the bottom of it. I have described it step by step, with examples.
It is easy to enter factors A B C and the resulting K into the competition table. And everything will be very clear, and most importantly - clear and understandable.
This can be done on concrete data.
And the calculation system I have proposed is very simple. Try to get to the bottom of it. I have written it step by step, with examples.
It is easy to enter factors A B C and the resulting K into the competition table. And everything will be very clear and understandable.
For me personally - the number of deals should not be one or two, but many. And one (two, three) successful transactions with the maximum lot "should not" play a major role in the final statistics - and by your system of calculations it does not work so. With examples later.