Has anyone tried to look at price fluctuations in terms of higher mathematics and its already invented mathematical apparatuses. - page 6
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
There's good code in the Base, very simple, I think it's the one in question, if you rock it for two years, there may well be a result... you can even use half the code and get better results... all the other stuff is just a crock of shit... but no one believes in the simplicity of the solution, everyone wants a galactic divine grail... but those who believe in it laugh at themselves... ...and at the rest of the newbies who start searching for the truth...))
Even if you trade using the simplest algorithm?
What is the point of this paradox, further elaborate on the idea, where does the catch lie?
Unlike a robot, a human is constantly gaining and applying experience. There is no way to "get rid" of the application of experience (explicit or implicit). Therefore, the following happens:
1. At the beginning a human trades very carefully, almost strictly following the strategy with small time tolerances. Except for outright fapaks signals based on the old experience - the profitability is like a textbook.
2. it relaxes a little, misses something, reacts earlier/later, imperceptibly increases the risk (and hence the profitability), and takes into account the experience from the previous period (has a different attitude to the signals) - the profitability is higher than on the previous one
3. Wow-effect - "two test periods passed, the money flowed, the strategy is great, I'm a cool guy" - allows more profit, the risk is too high. There will be underperformance or underflow
If you do not want to catch further wonders of individual psychology, you should get drunk ;-) or go to the mountains... you may bring your head to the state of "initial emptiness".
Unlike a robot, a human being is constantly gaining and applying experience. There is no way to "get rid" of the application of experience (explicit or implicit). That is why it turns out like this:
1. At the beginning a person trades very carefully, almost strictly following the strategy with small time tolerances. Except for outright fapaks signals based on the old experience - the profitability is like a textbook.
2. it relaxes a little, misses something, reacts earlier/later, imperceptibly increases the risk (and hence the profitability), and takes into account the experience from the previous period (has a different attitude to the signals) - the profitability is higher than on the previous one
3. Wow-effect - "two test periods passed, the money flowed, the strategy is great, I'm a cool guy" - allows more profit, the risk is too high. There will be underperformance or underflow
to avoid further miracles of individual psychology, you should drink alcohol ;-) or go to the mountains ... generally bring your head to the state of "initial emptiness".
1. 1. Experience is always positive for a person, it does not matter if the experience was negative or positive - experience is optimization and adaptation at the same time but it is also intellectual.
2. I agree that unlike a robot, a man can let himself slack off a little, take a rest, miss some signals, and the robot is certainly good at that.
3. The overestimation of risks, the wow effect, and other mistakes are mostly peculiar to beginners or some types of people inclined to risk, who have simply not yet adapted to the harsh realities of the market, with time you can learn as you learn in any other profession.
1. 1. the application of experience, it always has a positive impact on the person, no matter whether the experience was negative or positive, experience is optimization and adaptation at the same time, but it is also intellectual.
2. I agree that unlike a robot, a man can let himself slack off a bit, take a rest, miss some signals, and the robot is certainly a good one here.
3. They have a very strong influence on robotics, but in general they do not have any effect on their trading robot, because they do not have enough information and tools to make profits, and they do not know how to make profit.
don't flatter yourself...
experience is not a collection of skills and techniques that lead unambiguously to a bright future. Experience is almost always at odds with experience. The accumulation and application of experience can be harmful. In fact, this is the essence of the paradox. In the premature application of the new and the rapid negation of the old,
and all of the above is inherent in everyone. From the qualification it is a little less pronounced, but everything remains in place. For example - a beginner (human, not a substance) will additionally increase the risk by increasing the volumes, and you won't increase the volumes but will relax the timings/permits/lags too (and this is also a risk play as a matter of fact).
You will not increase volumes, but you will relax timings/permits/lags as well(and this is also a risk game, in fact).
This thing, by the way, also affects optimisers. In the twilight goals they maximize profits, and maximize profits on maximal risks, on seemingly insignificant deviations. And there is a "snot" on top if there is a martingale directly-obviously.
To create a profitable Expert Advisor, it is enough to know arithmetic and the basics of Boolean algebra.
Here are the results of a 2021 test of an Expert Advisor in which no indicators are used in the entry and exit conditions, and only two logical variables are used for entry and without any optimization. The entry condition is so simple that it might cause you to laugh and ask yourself, "Why did it only occur to me after all these years?" After all, it's so simple!)
Can you show me the test for 2020, with a chart?
Didn't keep it. I've had a few EAs of this kind, and a handful of them. I am looking for such an algorithm, so that the profit per month would be at least 50%, with the drawdown within 20%.
Didn't keep it. I've had a few EAs of this kind, and a handful of them. I'm looking for such an algorithm, so that the profit per month would be at least 50%, with a drawdown within 20%.
Well, judging by the profit factor, the parameters are even better there)
No, it doesn't reach it. The profits there are largely due to reinvestment.
Here in this thread, a lot of reports have been posted.