Criteria for getting signals to the top - page 11
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
To suggest anything, you need to know the parameters for calculating the ratings, and this is a secret
You don't need to know the current method of rating calculation to create your own.
To suggest anything, you need to know the parameters for calculating the ratings, and this is a secret
What parameters do you need, Olga?
Here - there are the signals. You have all the data on them. Suggest your rating !
My page has conditions under which the signal must be in the top, the only thing I realized that the amount of deposit does not play a role, the provider may be a professional trader and create a signal with 100$, the main thing is MM compliance and no desire to "win back" the trader in the inevitable drawdown
Yes, Olga, you have conditions listed on your page. But these conditions are dichotomous, i.e. either "plus" or "minus". For the overall rating, such a rating is totally unsuitable - a huge number of signals are rated "minus", and thus you have a reckless martingale "for the whole roll" will be absolutely equivalent to any of my favorites of the TS League! And the signals that will respond to them - again, will not differ from each other, despite the noticeable differences in characteristics.
The question is to get a score for each signal, by which the signals can be compared. Take a look at my TC League. Each system has a "Quality" parameter - by which you can unambiguously say which system is better and which is worse.
In your context, you can only compare "excellent" TC with "good, satisfactory, weak, unacceptable". Rating - means the possibility of comparing any TC, but the rules that derive this same value - I have not seen anyone.
I myself have long suggested rating (value of real Equity), but this rating - not for TOP, but for the user to determine what price can be paid for the signal.
The provider could be a professional trader and create a $100 signal,
Can you point the finger at this "professional trader" with this signal ?
Can i point the finger to the "professional trader" with such a signal ?
I wrote "maybe", if there was such a trader he would have 10,000 subscribers, while I see that all plummers, I now subscribe to a young signal for 2 reasons: I got my money back for subscription minus MQL commission and most importantly: there was an agreement that the deposit load will not exceed 5%, that is, when the drawdown is close to 30% I will suspend the subscription and fix everything manually, I myself do not trade because there is no time to monitor.
So it was with the signal that crashed not long ago, while I was keeping the drawdown to 30% was subscribed, as sugar exceeded 30% - I suspended it, I did not get in the drawdown, because I manually closed losing positions to 0, my comments remained in the signal.
I wrote "maybe" if there was such a trader...
Exactly. And here - only a lazy man has not attacked MetaQuotes, saying that "the rating is wrong". When you ask these critics what is offered instead, in the best case they offer the same system as yours, which answers only to the question "yes or no". The rating is intended for comparing any signals - both the lamest and the best, and it should objectively reflect the quality of trading.
I myself - worked out the Quality parameter for League TS for a very long time, and it was not easy. I had to pay for the code that calculates it (in fact, pay for the idea - the code there is not complicated). But, as I can see now - the quality assessment in my League is very, very adequate. The second issue is the question of stability of work, and I still have this question unresolved. There are some hints, I am using them, but I have to admit that my selection of TCs for stability is still intuitive.
A good rule of thumb is "when criticising, suggest". And here are the local dissatisfied rankings - this rule is not followed at all. It is obvious for me that they themselves understand that their signals are not worth a penny, and this is exactly the reason why Providers are indignant that WHEN their signal shows good results it is necessary to "cut sheep" as fast as possible before the signal begins to go down and for this purpose they need these "sheep" to flock. But how can we do it without the rating? That's the start of the Yaroslavna cry about the "inadequacy of the rating".
The question is clear - propose a formula, let's discuss it, and if it turns out to be reasonable - we will make a proposal to the developer. But I do not see any brave ones.
I think the most important criteria for rating should be (in descending order) 1)lifetime of the signal, 2) max drawdown, 3) max deposit load, and only then profitability, number of subscribers, etc. If the signal has a history before subscription to MQL, it should a priori send it to the very bottom, as well as the beginner's signal.
Olga, no one disagrees that these are important parameters. They should be put into a formula. Without the formula, a ten-week signal with the maximum deposit load of 100% is better than a nine-week signal with the maximum deposit load of 10%.