From theory to practice - page 114

[Yousufkhodja Sultonov]

Dmitriy Skub:

Yusuf, then how can you explain that all your signals, based on the three theories mentioned above, show a steady minus? If nothing else, they are a drain.

This is not a trick question - I am really interested in your opinion. After all, if the experiment refutes the historical tests, then there can only be one conclusion - the theory is wrong. Or is it?

As can be seen from the results of testing the specified TS, all of them were super-conservative with returns around 4% per annum, although they have a good recovery factor (RV) of about 5. With these TS you have to wait for years or even decades for a win-win trade. Experiments have shown that it cannot be otherwise in the foreign exchange market, where the major participants are the central banks of countries with low, and sometimes negative (Japan), small, in the range of 1-1.5% (USA, EU) refinancing rates. Against this background, a reliable profit of 4% per annum looks brilliant, but it is not at all sufficient to organise profitable trading in terms of trading. These examples show that it is possible to organize a profitable trading on the market, and the fact that the results do not satisfy our appetites means that this market is not designed for superprofits and anyhow the attempt is doomed to fail, as we can see in practice. But most traders do not believe in this phenomenon and continue their unsuccessful search for better trading variants, and suffer a consequent fiasco, including me who tried to "improve" the results, not believing my own conclusions, for which I was rightly punished by the market. The above 3 theories may indicate, in the future, the path that traders should follow, improving these theories, which is not bad at all, given that at the moment there is no solid theory of a win-win trading and they, I hope, will become the basis for development of a more perfect TS. Not much hope for myself as I will be 70 years old in the coming year. I congratulate everyone with the upcoming New Year and I will be glad if I have my followers in the coming year, to whom I will have time to pass all my experience from hand to hand, otherwise, understanding of my humble approaches to the market may take decades. Sorry for the digression from the topic. The TCs considered may be suitable for large funds, banks and other investors wishing to reliably extract profits from the market without undue haste.

[Alexander_K2]

Yousufkhodja Sultonov:
As can be seen from the results of testing these TS, all of them were super-conservative with returns in the region of 4% per annum, although they have a good profit factor of about 5. With these TS one should wait for years or even decades to get a profitable trade. Experiments have shown that it cannot be otherwise in the foreign exchange market, where the major participants are central banks with low, and sometimes negative (Japan), insignificant, in the range of 1-1.5% (USA, EU) refinancing rates. Against this background, a reliable profit of 4% per annum looks brilliant, but it is not at all sufficient to organise profitable trading in terms of trading. These examples show that it is possible to organize a profitable trading on the market, and the fact that the results do not satisfy our appetites means that this market is not designed for superprofits and anyhow the attempt is doomed to fail, as we can see in practice. But most traders do not believe in this phenomenon and continue their unsuccessful search for better trading variants, and suffer a consequent fiasco, including me who tried to "improve" the results, not believing my own conclusions, for which I was rightly punished by the market. The above 3 theories may indicate in the future the path that traders should follow, improving these theories, which is not bad at all, given that at the moment there is no solid theory of a win-win trading and they, I hope, will become the basis for development of a more perfect TS. Not much hope for myself as I will be 70 years old in the coming year. I congratulate everyone with the upcoming New Year and I will be glad if I have my followers in the coming year, to whom I will have time to pass all my experience from hand to hand, otherwise, understanding my humble approaches to the market may take decades. Sorry for the digression from the topic. The TCs considered may be suitable for large funds, banks and other investors wishing to profit reliably from the market without undue haste.

Yusuf, 70 is not an age at all. My father-in-law is 75 and he is constantly grabbing me by the breasts and teaching me about life without wanting to get into the essence of quantum physics. He's fun and interesting. Although for some rude posts please excuse me - it seems to me that there are only young people here and I try to talk to them in their language, and it certainly does not apply to you.

[[Deleted]]

Alexander_K2:

I have reread the theorists in this forum - my old heart aches...

You are the main theorist on this forum)))

Alexander_K2:

I've read the theorists on this forum once again - it makes my old heart ache... Gentlemen, I understand you - dashed hopes and all that... Your pockets are empty as never before and you're almost physiognomic because of your universal poverty ... Spit it out! If you're smart, change your views - read something or listen to smart people. We are still alive, aren't we?

Yes, you theorists are still alive)))

[Dmitriy Skub]

Yousufkhodja Sultonov:
As can be seen from the results of testing these TS, they all turned out to be ultra-conservative with a return of about 4% per annum, although they have a good profit factor of about 5. With these TS one should wait for years or even decades to get a profitable trade. Experiments have shown that it cannot be otherwise in the foreign exchange market, where the major participants are central banks with low, and sometimes negative (Japan), insignificant, in the range of 1-1.5% (USA, EU) refinancing rates. Against this background, a reliable profit of 4% per annum looks brilliant, but it is not at all sufficient to organise profitable trading in terms of trading. These examples show that it is possible to organize a profitable trading on the market, and the fact that the results do not satisfy our appetites means that this market is not designed for superprofits and anyhow the attempt is doomed to fail, as we can see in practice. But most traders do not believe in this phenomenon and continue their unsuccessful search for better trading variants, and suffer a consistent failure, including me who tried to "improve" the results, not believing my own conclusions, for which I was rightly punished by the market. The above 3 theories may indicate, in the future, the path that traders should follow, improving these theories, which is not bad at all, given that at the moment there is no solid theory of a win-win trading and they, I hope, will become the basis for development of a more perfect TS. Not much hope for myself as I will be 70 years old in the coming year. I congratulate everyone with the upcoming New Year and I will be glad if I have my followers in the coming year, to whom I will have time to pass all my experience from hand to hand, otherwise, understanding of my humble approaches to the market may take decades. Sorry for the digression from the topic. The TCs considered may be suitable for large funds, banks and other investors wishing to profit reliably from the market without undue haste.

So where is the PF around 5? On the tests we see only 1.3-1.8. What do you mean?

By the way, you are wasting your time taking the Euro from '79 - there are settlement quotes that have no test value. At least test from 2000.

[Alexander_K2]

Максим Дмитриев:

You are the main theorist on the forum)))

Yes, you theorists are still alive)))

Yes, well, that's what I wrote about the already hardened characters here. And we will start unrestrained practice after the New Year.

[Wizard2018]

Happy New Year!

May the trend be with us!

And health to spend the profits! :)

[Yousufkhodja Sultonov]

Dmitriy Skub:

So where is the PF around 5? The tests only show 1.3-1.8. What do you mean?

By the way, you're wasting your time taking the Euro from '79 - there are estimated quotes there that have no test value. At least test from 2000.

I was the one who confused PF with FS - recovery factor = ratio of net profit to maximum drawdown, I apologise:

1. FV = 394/81.07 = 4.86;

2. FV = 727/187.6 = 3.88;

3. FV = 248.6/37.47 = 6.63.

On average, fV = 5.

[Dmitriy Skub]

Yousufkhodja Sultonov:

1. NF = 394/81.07 = 4.86;

2. NF = 727/187.6 = 3.88;

3. PF = 248.6/37.47 = 6.63.

On average, PF = 5. You must have confused PF with profitability P. I have been taking Eura since 1973. I will take it from 2000 onwards, thank you.

Maybe someone else got it mixed up?

ProfitFactor is the ratio of total profit to total loss. One means that the sum of profits equals the sum of losses;

[Yousufkhodja Sultonov]

Dmitriy Skub:

Maybe someone else got it mixed up?

ProfitFactor is the ratio of total profit to total loss. One means that the sum of profits equals the sum of losses;

Yes, Dimitri, I confused PF with FS - recovery factor = ratio of net profit to maximum drawdown. Corrected, thanks for the remark.

[Vitali Kadel]

It's practice time!