Has anyone built a profitable EA - page 2
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
Most EAs blow up in a couple of months!
People forget that if you make a 100% per year, and you would compound that for 20 years (Nice retirement benefits) , you would change every 1 dollar invested into more than 1 million !
If you would invest 10.000 dollar , you would be the richest man on earth in 20 years time! There are natural limits to profit... Gravity does also pull on an equity line.
Yes there are profitable EAs out there...
My Cronos Trader is also trading on a live account at Mythos Trading .
Ps. Draw Down is part of the game, you've got to give to the market and not only take from it !
But make sure that what you give the market is smaller than what you take from it.
That is what my EA does.
Hello forexgoshen,
"But make sure that what you give the market is smaller than what you take from it."
This is not true in all cases !
If your equity angle is too steep, you will need to take loss.. You will need to relief Pressure...
Yes, Gravity also pulls on your graphs.
Strange thing ''Gravity''
This question comes up all the time. A strategy based on technical indicators alone, can be profitable in live trading, but for how long? You would have validated the system's performance in testing already, and can use a simple monitoring method to help protect from a "Blow Up".
1. Monitor the systems performance by analysing the equity curve, and comparing to a maximum percentage deviation from the average. ( determined by walk-forward-testing and live testing ).
If the system has a period of draw-down percent which is larger than the system has experienced during the validation process, then the system might have become un-coupled from the dynamics of the market it is designed for. The system should be withdrawn and the underlying market conditions should be assessed to determine the cause of the problem. The system can be returned to live testing or shelved, while the change in market conditions are current.
There are several ways of testing and monitoring the system and perhaps the above is not a perfect method, but this simple analysis has worked for me. Systems that "Blow Up" are usually because of: poor testing procedures, not using good risk management, using too much leverage, or the operator has failed to realise that the system is now operating outside of it's acceptable limits.
Systems that are solely based on optimised indicators will probably have a life span that can be monitored using the equity curve analysis. Changes can be made, in order to keep the system 'in tune' with the market, however the entire validation process must be stepped through again.
Not easy, but possible to do.
Regards, Chris.
P.s ( Comments that can improve on this method are very welcome, thanks ! )
Theres a lot of rubbish being marketed out there on the internet about how expert advisors make a lot of money, I have tried a few and they all fail sooner or later usually in 3-6 months. My question is has anybody been sucessfull in coding a full auto EA that actually consistantly makes money with low drawdown. It doesn't have to make a huge amount but it has to keep working. Enven if it only makes 1-3 % per month but with a small draw down less than 6%. Has anyon been able to code anything that actually works. I'm just curious.
Cheers Lee
It's my monitoring. Totally automatic EA.
http://www.onix-trade.net/?act=monitoring_stat&xid=35276
Eaxctly right mate everyone is trying to chsae the EA thats going to make them a millionare over night, i'm chasing the EA that won't lose my money.
Average annual return at 42% from 01.2001 - 07.2013. (Without yearly compounding)
Using $5,000 capital with Avg. MaxDrawdown/year $1,594 and Avg. absolute drawdown / year is $609.
Lose only in the year 2005. So far..
Does it sounds good? But its not live result.
Average annual return at 42% from 01.2001 - 07.2013. (Without yearly compounding)
Using $5,000 capital with Avg. MaxDrawdown/year $1,594 and Avg. absolute drawdown / year is $609.
Lose only in the year 2005. So far..
Does it sounds good? But its not live result.
I've had a look at the signals and I know I'm new here and don't want to disrespect anyone but most of them seem to be on demo accounts with a small deposit not real convincing. The returns are spectacular but would you put $100,000 of your own cash into an account and allow these eas to trade on your behalf. I'm wanting to see something that has a year or to of live trading with low drawdown and positive returns something that is safe and can be trusted with a very large live account.
What have you got
Lee
I think of it in terms of a dynamic market. In other words, because the market changes by the second, then a signal must be written to take advantage of price action. Example: When price crosses a moving average, buy, or sell. This dynamic happens in the market over and over. It happened in the past, and it will happen in the future as well. So the strategy needs to consider the average. Out of 100 cross overs, how far does it go(averaged), how far does it back track on average. Then run the strategy in a test, the average result should be your expectation. So no matter, test, demo, or real account, the dynamic is the same. The next consideration is, was the test in a Bear Market, a Bull Market or a Sideways Market,. Run the EA signal in the same market conditions as the test was run. It would probably be more dependable. It is like picking a fund manager. Say the track record is 12% earnings growth rate over last three years. You may decide that you could expect 36% in three years with that manager. The back tested strategy will show a similar result. Because both the back test, and the fund manager track record are subject to the common rule,"Past performance can not be depended upon for future results", they both have the same potential. One is no more risk than the other. Neither one, can tell you the future. So the average is expected, at least. Another example: Say the S&P500 grows 15%, for the last three years, if you can perform the market at 15%, then it is acceptable for most managers. If they outperform, of course that is even better, they will gain more investors for money management services. To do way better, design a strategy that out performs the average, using leverage. Now that is a goal worth pursuing. Instead of 15%, you gain 80% or more. These are just examples, and may or may not be possible depending upon what the signal designer believes. I think when the thought is,"It is not possible" then a way, will not be sought and so..non will be found. When the thought is "It is possible", then a way will be sought, and eventually found.". I think, "nothing" is impossible. It is true literally.."Nothing" is impossible, you will always have, hear, see, think, experience, do, "something". To sum it up: "Nothing" is impossible, while "something" is always possible. Believe in 'Something", and seek a way to make your possibilities a reality, and you will. :-)
Try it on a live account and you will see how it sounds good.