I suggest "MQL5 signals" establish and present a new index (that I name it "EoB") = Equity/Balance x 100 (%). It shoud be charted by time or by closed trades. - 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
*Maybe I'm missing something about this EoB index.
If my calculations and generalizations of the EoB vs what we already have is wrong then please let me know. Also since you're a believer in this index, I have a question. Given the system_1 and system_2 example above, at what point does the Maximum_EoB tip the scale for you?
Example:
System1_ Maximum_EOB=300% && Minimum_EOB=%50. vs
System2_ Maximum_EOB=120% && Minimum_EOB=%65.
Which system would you go with? Does a higher Maximum_EOB mean a good thing for you? Are you always going with the one with the smallest Relative_Drawdown% ?
Let me call "earning rate" = (last Equity - initial Deposite) / initial Deposite,
With the same earning rate on the same period of working, it 's simple to choose --> the greater minEoB
--> The answer is System2
With the same earning rate on the same period of working, and the same (or nearly the same) minEoB --> choose the greater maxEoB.
Let me call "earning rate" = (last Equity - initial Deposite) / initial Deposite,
With the same earning rate on the same period of working, it 's simple to choose --> the greater minEoB
--> The answer is System2
With the same earning rate on the same period of working, and the same (or nearly the same) minEoB --> choose the greater maxEoB.
Yeah, thats what I taught. If Current_Equity == $101.00 for both systems. And minEoB == $50 for both systems. We choose the one with the Highest / maxEoB [Got-It]. But in this case, the minEoB is-not the same. So what does (or nearly the same) means. Is there a mathematical formula for figuring out when the Reward exceeds the Risk?
*Ps: lets keep in mind we're talking about *floating gains/losses here.
Lot size is an option even if signal provider wins one pip with a lot size of 10 and loses 100 pips with a lot size of 0.01 the follower can himself set his own lot sizes and i wish mt5 signals allow followers to set their own lot sizes. Percentages can be forged. Whenever a figure can be changed by lot size or leverage while different brokers and accounts support different leverage that cant be even comparison. Pips is a standard gauge across the board. It allows one to gauge the distance in profit one has made across the board irrespective of currency, lot size, leverage etc and is thus the best for comparison so the follower can do his own research to see what he can make using his/her own lot size and leverage settings.
Lot size is an option even if signal provider wins one pip with a lot size of 10 and loses 100 pips with a lot size of 0.01 the follower can himself set his own lot sizes and i wish mt5 signals allow followers to set their own lot sizes.
Percentages can be forged. Whenever a figure can be changed by lot size or leverage while different brokers and accounts support different leverage that cant be even comparison.
Pips is a standard gauge across the board.
It allows one to gauge the distance in profit one has made across the board irrespective of currency, lot size, leverage etc and is thus the best for comparison so the follower can do his own research to see what he can make using his/her own lot size and leverage settings.
Blah...Blah...Blah, more of the same tonny-the-tiger. Show-me.
You however raise some good points about the signals service allowing subscribers to change their lot-sizes. If someone is subscribing to a signal and using different lot-sizes compared to the provider, this person also needs to understand that they're now trading a different system compared to the provider. You should spend more time informing your subscribers about this instead of preaching pips.
If you want to compete with your competitors then create a system which turns $100 into $2,400 in 10-weeks (pretty easy to-do, if you submit about 100 systems per month some are bound to achieve this). Just also let the subscribers know that the system can also wipe-out the account.
You speak as if you can offer a guarantee against going broke. But there's not a trader alive who can do this. People gravitate towards other systems because of the share reward_potential within a short amount of time upon small investment. Most are willing to lose this $100 for a chance to hit it big. This is not fraud... its simple math and psychology.
Yeah, thats what I taught. If Current_Equity == $101.00 for both systems. And minEoB == $50 for both systems. We choose the one with the Highest / maxEoB [Got-It]. But in this case, the minEoB is-not the same. So what does (or nearly the same) means. Is there a mathematical formula for figuring out when the Reward exceeds the Risk?
*Ps: lets keep in mind we're talking about *floating gains/losses here.
What do you mean by "minEoB==$50" ? Do you mean Emin == $50. I agree that Emin is not corresponding to minEoB.
About "the same or nearly the same": if minEoB(system1) = 80.1 %, for example and minEoB(system2) =70.8 %, for example. Then we can consider them as "nearly the same"
The image is example for system comparison via EoB index (same earning rate on same period of working)
Better system is the second
Your EoB have some flaws you may want to consider. See image below. Doesn't seem to handle one-trade-@-a-time correctly.
- In your imgage, the System1_Minimum_EoB=70% is pretty close to System2_Minimum_EoB=71%. Yet you choose System2 because it's Higher Minimum_EoB. Why didn't you consider them "nearly the same"? .....
* With the same earning rate on the same period of working, and the same (or nearly the same) minEoB --> choose the greater maxEoB.
* if minEoB(system1) = 80.1 %, for example and minEoB(system2) =70.8 %, for example. Then we can consider them as "nearly the same"
.....Then choose System1 because of "the greater maxEoB". If System2[ In your Image ]_Minimum_EoB=70% [ make it the same as System1 ] would you still consider it better than System1?
Your EoB have some flaws you may want to consider. See image below. Doesn't seem to handle one-trade-@-a-time correctly.
- In your imgage, the System1_Minimum_EoB=70% is pretty close to System2_Minimum_EoB=71%. Yet you choose System2 because it's Higher Minimum_EoB. Why didn't you consider them "nearly the same"? .....
.....Then choose System1 because of "the greater maxEoB". If System2[ In your Image ]_Minimum_EoB=70% [ make it the same as System1 ] would you still consider it better than System1?
We all do not spend time to evaluate losing systems with equity goes downtrend or negative earning ratio.
For one-trade-a-time systems, just don't chart them by number of closed trades, but by equal intervals of time instead. The smaller interval the better.
by the way, I didn't ever refuse the worth of existing indices of Metaquotes. My suggestion is exactly a supplement, not a replacement. In some case, this index work best, in other case, that index does.
My EoB index would work best in cases that you hesitate to choose 1 among systems with the same or nearly the same earning ratio per period. And the result is more exact if the period to study each of them is the same.
why 70 is not nearly the same with 71: it is up to each person to consider how much is the acceptable deviation. Up to me, 1% difference of EoB is considerable. To you, it must be at least 2%, to him/her, it may be 3 or 5% ...
We all do not spend time to evaluate losing systems with equity goes downtrend or negative earning ratio.
For one-trade-a-time systems, just don't chart them by number of closed trades, but by equal intervals of time instead. The smaller interval the better.
by the way, I didn't ever refuse the worth of existing indices of Metaquotes. My suggestion is exactly a supplement, not a replacement. In some case, this index work best, in other case, that index does.
My EoB index would work best in cases that you hesitate to choose 1 among systems with the same or nearly the same earning ratio per period. And the result is more exact if the period to study each of them is the same.
why 70 is not nearly the same with 71: it is up to each person to consider how much is the acceptable deviation. Up to me, 1% difference of EoB is considerable. To you, it must be at least 2%, to him/her, it may be 3 or 5% ...
1) Does-not need to be down-trend, I used the down-trend as an obvious example. They could both be up-trends.
2) This performance index depends mostly on how-often the snapshot of equity vs balance is taken. And would capture less accurately systems which trades one-trade-@-a-time depending on how often MQ captures it. This is more resource intensive.
3) I'm not questioning the worth of your EoB index either. The more stuff Meta-Quotes includes the happier everyone will be. But how practical is this approach? I alone can submit over 100 studies which Meta-Quotes can include.
4) Perhaps you're correct. But how about something much more universal and less-particular?
5) Ambiguity confuses people. It's either 1% || 2% || 3% || 5%. Either System1 performs better-than System2 or it doesn't. If everyone using the same Index is equally valid in re-defining it, then whats the point of the Index?
Pips is the only way that providers cant manipulate figures and is thus the best way to compare performances in an even playing field. By using cash or growth, a strategy that makes just one pip a month can be manipulated by lot size or leverage to look way better and this is why in signals you see several signals with unrealistic monthly percentage growth of thousands.