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 3

New comment
 
PauloBrasil: I totally  agree with you! 

You can already sort signals by pips in both mt4 and mt5. See image below [green box].

- The signal with the highest_pips is the biggest_loser in the list ...... wow !!

- The signal with the second_highest pips is the same provider with the lowest_pips.

- The signal with the third_highest pips have zero subscribers, same goes to 4th signal.

- Ps: we already have pips .... so whats all the fuss about?

-And if we Rank by Pips ... the providers on top will still be the providers on top.

-And if we Rank by Pips ... the subscribers preference still appears random.

- Given all these facts, Sorry I have to Dis-Agree with you.

 

 
If they allow users to set their own lots the sp experiments of using big lots wont affect the followers and it will also encourage sps to trade wisely. The issue of making loss while pips are profitable is a result of sp trying to buff their systems unsuccessfully. Just the fact that they have positive pips is a potential to win if the follower used fixed lot or any wiser setting irrespective of the sp lot sizes.
 
tonny: If they allow users to set their own lots the sp experiments of using big lots wont affect the followers and it will also encourage sps to trade wisely. The issue of making loss while pips are profitable is a result of sp trying to buff their systems unsuccessfully. Just the fact that they have positive pips is a potential to win if the follower used fixed lot or any wiser setting irrespective of the sp lot sizes.

Wrong. Past performance is-not indicative of future results. Should a system capture +200,000 pips in the past year, this is no guarantee that it'll continue doing this. Matter of fact it's likely going to start losing -200,000 pips in the current year. No subscriber is going to stick around for this. You have +100,000 pips how ever your subscribers are showing -100,000 pips how fair is that?

Another example. A subscriber starts out getting good pips from a system, they double their account from $100 to $200. They start thinking if I go from 0.01 lots to 0.02 lots, I can double my $200 at this expected rate. However the signal pip-count goes flat-to-downward, now it only takes half the gained pips to put your subscriber in the negative. The system still shows +50 pips however your subscribers have gained nothing.

People aren't going to flat-bet forever. Providers aren't going to guarantee +pips forever. You and #1 and #2 are a perfect example of that currently.  

 
Ubzen:

Wrong. Past performance is-not indicative of future results. Should a system capture +200,000 pips in the past year, this is no guarantee that it'll continue doing this. Matter of fact it's likely going to start losing -200,000 pips in the current year. No subscriber is going to stick around for this. You have +100,000 pips how ever your subscribers are showing -100,000 pips how fair is that?

Another example. A subscriber starts out getting good pips from a system, they double their account from $100 to $200. They start thinking if I go from 0.01 lots to 0.02 lots, I can double my $200 at this expected rate. However the signal pip-count goes flat-to-downward, now it only takes half the gained pips to put your subscriber in the negative. The system still shows +50 pips however your subscribers have gained nothing.

People aren't going to flat-bet forever. Providers aren't going to guarantee +pips forever. You and #1 and #2 are a perfect example of that currently.  

I totally agree with you ! :-D
 
So you want to say that your percentage system is better and if you subscribe to the buffed signals with 1,000% per month growth you will also make 1,000% monthly growth? Hell no. You will burn your account ask raptor with his winrate R:R strategy.
 
Ubzen:

Wrong. Past performance is-not indicative of future results. Should a system capture +200,000 pips in the past year, this is no guarantee that it'll continue doing this. Matter of fact it's likely going to start losing -200,000 pips in the current year. No subscriber is going to stick around for this. You have +100,000 pips how ever your subscribers are showing -100,000 pips how fair is that?

Another example. A subscriber starts out getting good pips from a system, they double their account from $100 to $200. They start thinking if I go from 0.01 lots to 0.02 lots, I can double my $200 at this expected rate. However the signal pip-count goes flat-to-downward, now it only takes half the gained pips to put your subscriber in the negative. The system still shows +50 pips however your subscribers have gained nothing.

People aren't going to flat-bet forever. Providers aren't going to guarantee +pips forever. You and #1 and #2 are a perfect example of that currently.  

Of course in any system including yours future performance is never guaranteed. About when to increase lots is a matter of choice and thats why i said followers should be allowed to set their own lot size. You cant just double lots because you doubled profit and this is why i said the power to determine lot size to be stripped from sp and be given to the follower so they themselves can use fixed lot size even if provider increases theirs. Percentage never works well in comparison thats why top signal services use pips for comparison not percentage. Mql5 is the only one ive seen. When you open a trade its the distance from the open price that determines your profit and this distance is measured in pips so why complicate things just take the pips and use it to calculate dd etc There is no signal service using your formula and that shows that after worldwide consultation it was arrived that pips is the best for comparison. The other formulas can yes be used at home but when it comes to comparing the only acros the board and fair impossible to manipulate or turbo results method is the pips.
 
Its easy for anyone to create a 1000% growth per month signal than a 1000 pips  per month signal in a demo account. Because with pips there is no shortcut.
 
tonny:
So you want to say that your percentage system is better and if you subscribe to the buffed signals with 1,000% per month growth you will also make 1,000% monthly growth? Hell no. You will burn your account ask raptor with his winrate R:R strategy.

As I already explained . . .

Forum

New EA

RaptorUK, 2013.05.27 12:58

 

Any strategy can be profitable for a day,  a week maybe even a month.  The question is how do you determine if a strategy is behaving the way it is due to it's design or due to chance and the nature of the markets ?

This concept (shown by the WR vs R:R chart) is not a strategy it is an analysis tool.

A "coin toss" type strategy can have a good run . . .  so why can't any strategy have a good run also ?  how do you know if your strategy is actually performing due to it's design or is just having a good run ?

 

This is from a "coin toss" type strategy . . .  

 

 

A "coin toss" type strategy is exactly the opposite of what everyone tries to achieve with the strategy they design,  it does not seek to predict the market in any way,  it simply tries to place trades in a way that is random and uses fixed SL & TP positions.  It will end up with equal long and short trades.  One thing that will surprise most people is that this "coin toss" strategy can have a Win Rate that is not 50% . . . in fact it's WR can be any value you like.

So how does a "coin toss" end up with a WR greater or less than 50% ?  simple,  by adjusting the SL & TP. 

This is the key fact . . . .   the WR for a "coin toss" type strategy is driven by the ratio of it's SL:TP or Risk:Reward.  SL:TP of  60:6 gives a WR of 91%  SL:TP of 6:60 gives a WR of 9%  (these figures assume a spread of zero) 

 

How does this help ?  

If your strategy's WR is also determined by it's Risk:Reward then it is no better than a "coin toss".   

 

How does one determine this ?

Determine the Risk:Reward for your strategy,  find it's WR,  plot these figures on the WR vs R:R chart  (or use the calculation method to determine the BE WR)  if your plotted point is close to the theoretical line then your strategy is as good as a "coin toss".   If it is not close to the line then your strategy is more likely to be profitable.

 

What are the complications in using this analysis ?

For many EAs this analysis is simple,  for manual trading strategies it can be difficult to determine a representative WR and Risk:Reward figures especially if the number of trades is small. For a strategy that does not use a fixed SL the risk may not be directly proportional to the average loss,  in some cases the average MAE should be considered as the true Risk for the strategy.   


 

@tonny:

So you want to say that your percentage system is better and if you subscribe to the buffed signals with 1,000% per month growth you will also make 1,000% monthly growth? Hell no. You will burn your account ask raptor with his winrate R:R strategy.

No-One made this claim above. You're the one making the claim about Pips-as-even-field. Please pay attention. Most frequent commentators here admit that mt-signals is young and allot of thing can be improved about it. However, Pips ranking is-not one of them. I make some suggestions on the bottom, hope they'll consider it. 

About when to increase lots is a matter of choice and thats why i said followers should be allowed to set their own lot size.

Subscribers to a certain extend is admitting they are not traders and/or they cannot trade as-well-as the provider they're subscribing to. The timing of when to increase lots is the responsibility of the Provider. You have all the stats of the signals, you've done all the research of the signals. You're in some sense the expert here. But now you want to put the most importing part of trading ... the money-management... in the subscriber's hands?

We're all adults here. Want to give the subscriber the option of changing the lot-size ... fine with me. Just also tell them they're now trading a different system compared to what's provided. It's your responsibility to make recommendations in terms of Lotsizes, starting_capital, leverage, spread/commission structures. etc .. etc.

You're already shifting the blame of why your precious Pip_Gage goes wrong. I can already see you placing blames on subscribers for losing should their positive+pips ... yield negative results. Its like on the one-hand you're saying give them the option. And then on the other hand saying "use fixed lots".

Percentage never works well in comparison thats why top signal services use pips for comparison not percentage.

Show me some examples please. The image I provided is Real, not some made-up stories. People can open up their terminals and verify for themselves.

When you open a trade its the distance from the open price that determines your profit and this distance is measured in pips so why complicate things just take the pips and use it to calculate dd

What! you cannot calculate draw-downs based on pips man. In my years of studying Forex, I've never seen anyone or anything that calculate draw-down% and returns% in pips. A trading system is an actively changing thing. If a system is taking 50% equity draw-downs, there's no-reason it should still be rated #1 based on balance or pips.

There is no signal service using your formula and that shows that after worldwide consultation it was arrived that pips is the best for comparison.

Yeah, I'm sure they consulted with you Tonny. When and where was this study done. I just sorted the Signals according to Positive Pips Gained and it provided no clear picture. The biggest Pips is big time loser. The next biggest pips is suffering from nearly 50% relative draw-down as we speak. The 3rd and 4th biggest pips, no-body will subscribe to because it's not free. The growth% is still un-realistic by your definition. The people you're trying to call fraud are beating you in all categories.


The other formulas can yes be used at home but when it comes to comparing the only acros the board and fair impossible to manipulate or turbo results method is the pips.

Have you read this article https://championship.mql5.com/2012/en/2008. You and Meta-Quotes should follow the ranking system provided within this article. I also recommend using Current_Equity and getting rid-of Balance_Analysis all-together. I'm pretty much gonna leave this topic with that article. When you understand how it works ... we can have an adult conversation..... Peace.
 

 Show me some examples please

I have numerous examples of signals services using pips but if i post them ill be banned so you will have to ask moderators for a waiver so i can post them.

  Raptor: As I already explained . . .

Gosh mention winrate r:r and you get raptor to a discussion.

 You're the one making the claim about Pips-as-even-field

Yes when it comes to "comparing" systems. And note the word "comparing". All other stuff are optional in an account you can decide to use 1 or 0.1 lots or 1:100 or 1:1000 as leverage but you cant alter pips its the heartbeat. Tamper proof. Forge proof. Buff proof unit in forex across all account types, currencies broker rules. And that is why its the best for comparison. Metaquotes can show their own percentages there but pips must be included. There is nowhere else ive seen other than here where pips is not included in the stats.

12345
New comment
Reason: