Record on the Market - page 24
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
I'm not trying to hurt you. Honestly.
From the looks of it, you're trying to profit from the market. It may be an efficient method of trading. But if we're talking about selling EAs, then offering the user a 1/450th share of the total algorithmic power is wrong. I think.
Nah, if we're talking about selling, then as was said here above - "we need to give the user control". Here it's all very much fine. The user looks at how all the bots work, and chooses the best one. And he pays for it.
450 is the total number. But only half of them are profitable, and only a hundred of them have trade quality higher than 80%. At the same time, the stability of many of them leaves much to be desired. The bot was showing a good quality, and then, boom, it's a "test shot".
But the main obstacle to the implementation of this model is users themselves. It is only in words they "want the ability to control". But in reality nobody wants anything. Everyone wants to get and do nothing at the same time.
I alone have no problem supporting them. They all work continuously on a demo account.
This is, by the way, to the question about the effectiveness of the OOP approach.
Do you even remember their names ?
And why is that ?
Here, on Friday, 17 bots registered exceeding "control parameters" and stopped. Today - I am launching special optimization versions for each of them which form control functions during optimization. Right in the file the optimization version generates text of MQL-program. It only remains to copy each resulting function into the appropriate initial bot and send it "back into action".
That's all support.
Sometimes errors will pop up, usually in the shared class library. In that case, the errors are fixed and all bots are sent for recompilation. Since each bot is designed as a class, it is included into the text in one line of code. Correspondingly, there are files with one such line in each of them - these are separate bots. But on a demo account, there are files that contain all of the available class lines and they work all at once. In idea, you can put all the bots in one file. But I'm using time division - one file contains bots that work only in the morning, another - in the afternoon, the third - in the evening, the fourth - at night, the fifth - without any restrictions...
The system is already pretty well established and the technology is fine-tuned. The last thing left undone is the evaluation of the stability of the work and the selection of bots for the reals. Unfortunately, as I have said more than once, stability is still largely assessed intuitively.
Well, from the narrative, it's one system. And it's a cool system. I'd make one robot, but you decided to split it into 450 parts. That's your choice. I just needed to make it clear. There was a misconception.
Nah, if we're talking about selling, it's like they said above - "you have to give the user control". It's all very well here. The user looks at how all the bots work and chooses the best one. And he pays for it.
450 is the total number. But only half of them are profitable, and only a hundred of them have trade quality higher than 80%. At the same time, the stability of many of them leaves much to be desired. The bot is showing a good quality, but then, boom, it's a "control shot".
But the main obstacle to the implementation of this model is users themselves. It is only in words they "want the ability to control". But in reality nobody wants anything. Everyone wants to get, and at the same time - to do nothing.
You cannot indulge this in any way. Otherwise their thirst for freebies will ruin the whole business in the market.
Do you even remember their names?
Of course I do ! In the TC-League thread- the top 20 for balance and the top 20 for trade quality are reported.
There are also balance charts for the top 10 in balance and the top 10 in trading quality.
On Monday I will post another report and charts for the best ones.
Well, from the story it looks like it's one system. And it's a cool system. I'd make one robot, but you decided to split it into 450 parts. That's your choice. Just needed to make it clear. It gave me the wrong idea.
Well, Market can also be considered one system... And there are more robots than 400...
All bots are completely independent of each other, they can work in one file or in different ones. And, after optimisation, their internal functions are also switched and parameters are taken each time different.
Well, Market can also be counted as one system... And there are more robots than 400...
All bots are completely independent of each other, they can work in the same or in different files. And, after optimization, their internal functions are switched and parameters are taken each time.
Well, it's a free fantasy. You could think of the Market as a starship flying through the vastness of financial space-time...
Yes, friends, you've been talking too much. Or maybe MQl is just having difficulties at the moment? And the staff of translators and moderators have been laid off because of it? This will of course reduce the running costs and give time for a new breakthrough. But the situation is becoming unsustainable: there will either be an uphill climb or a rock fall. As luck would have it.
I think users who are capable of generating out-of-the-box ideas for project development need to step up and don't hesitate to put them forward. Maybe one of them will really turn out to be a lifeline for this wonderful project.
Yes, friends, you've been talking too much. Or maybe MQl is just having difficulties at the moment? And the staff of translators and moderators have been laid off because of it? This will of course reduce the running costs and give time for a new breakthrough. But the situation is becoming unsustainable: there will either be an uphill climb or a rock fall. As luck would have it.
I think we need to activate users who are able to generate out-of-the-box ideas on project development, and do not hesitate to put them forward. Maybe one of them will really prove to be a lifeline for this wonderful project.
Ideas are generated all the time. But the attitude of others (non-sellers) to these ideas is inadequate.
A very good offer indeed. And most likely not very difficult to implement.