moving averages do really work? - page 3

New comment
 

My broker doesn't use commision. It is straight spread. I know the spread varries based on market conditions.

For this tester run I used 1.4 (14 points) as spread. Forex.com is my broker. Their spread goes down as the account equity increases - down to 1.0 for EURUSD. So I think 1.4 is ok for testing purposes.

Thanks again for your insight.

 

Those test results mean nothing... really.

Once you get past that point you can try to go for the real deal..

 

I know they mean nothing. But it is the only way of developing a strategy.

The longer the testing (years) the better chances you have of developing a strategy that covers a lot of market conditions.

Many people from what I see go by intuition or look at a narrow timeframe - either trending or sideways market, then develop a trading system for that. Then a change in market condition takes them for a ride.


So far that's may opinion. Willing to change if I'm proven wrong.

 

No that can not be true.

I got tired of telling people but i found over the years, things that work in the tester usually fail in the real event, and things that fail in the tester can work in real deal, some things that can not be tested in the tester work best in real and well it seems the best things can not be tested unless put on real feeds.

You do not need the tester to come up with something that really works.

I have seen it on multiple occasions.

It's also something peculiar that when you find something that's real, you also find shortly after it was staring you in the face like all the time.

Those things are written about extensively usually...

Do i need to say more ?

I dunno.

 

You may be right.... I don't know. So far I didn't get that "wow" moment.

Maybe I will never get it .... and the best I can do is to work with the tools at my disposal.


But in my opinion telling people not to use the tester is not helpful either. If anything else, it is a learning tool. Use it in conjunction with other books and material, and you're better off than just jumping into it and learn to swim as you go.


I am not a young man anymore and I did trade options and futures in my life, got a bite at forex few years back with no success. Trying again now.

Maybe my engineering/analytical brain will keep me from seeing the obvoius "aha" - but will keep on trying.

 
Marco vd Heijden:

No that can not be true.

I got tired of telling people but i found over the years, things that work in the tester usually fail in the real event, and things that fail in the tester can work in real deal, some things that can not be tested in the tester work best in real and well it seems the best things can not be tested unless put on real feeds.

You do not need the tester to come up with something that really works.

I have seen it on multiple occasions.

It's also something peculiar that when you find something that's real, you also find shortly after it was staring you in the face like all the time.

Those things are written about extensively usually...

Do i need to say more ?

I dunno.

OK! This is going off topic again, but although there is same grain of truth to your words, I don't agree for the most part! That is my opinion based on my experience and yours may have been different obviously.

I run several profitable EA's of my own creation that have been running, some for several years and other for shorter periods, and all of them underwent testing via the strategy tester before deployment.

Obviously, the test results are only as good as the the triumvirate (Strategy, Code and Test Environment), but in every case, the Real Live trading results have not been very far from the test results.

My EA's however, have been coded to overcome and compensate for many of the shortcomings present in the Strategy Tester and its inherently flawed environment.

I only trade by EAs and very seldomly do I trade manually, but before I code an EA, I always do a manual back-test of a new strategy, so as to pick up on any inconsistencies that may arise in the Strategy Tester at a later stage, and make it a point to included that "intelligence" in the EA code. Also, I only code EAs that self-adjust or use dynamic parameters, never fixed parameters that require optimisation. In fact, I seldomly optimise my EA's as they have been coded to adapt.

EDIT: I also NEVER use pending orders, as those really give very false good results in the test and usually much worse results in Real trading. All my current EA's only use Market Orders (@Alain Verleyen will probably jump in here because of me saying this part).
 
Fernando Carreiro:
...
EDIT: I also NEVER use pending orders, as those really give very false good results in the test and usually much worse results in Real trading. All my current EA's only use Market Orders (@Alain Verleyen will probably jump in here because of me saying this part).
Fernando please. If you don't want to use pending orders, there is no problem. All what I am saying it they can be useful. I guess one day I will have to prove the obvious.
 
Alain Verleyen: Fernando please. If you don't want to use pending orders, there is no problem. All what I am saying it they can be useful. I guess one day I will have to prove the obvious.
It this case, however, I am mostly focusing on the fact that the Strategy Tester gives "false" data when using Pending Orders and that cannot be denied in any way.

It is simply "fact" that the strategy Tester always matches Pending Prices (and Stops) at an exact match or price and not based on the underlying Bid/ask prices in the tick data.

So, in this case, you won't be able to "sway" me on that point.

In live trading however, I have said that there are a few cases which I consider that Pending Orders would be useful (but only a few) and in this context then yes, you may one day be able to sway me!
 
Fernando Carreiro:
It this case, however, I am mostly focusing on the fact that the Strategy Tester gives "false" data when using Pending Orders and that cannot be denied in any way.

It is simply "fact" that the strategy Tester always matches Pending Prices (and Stops) at an exact match or price and not based on the underlying Bid/ask prices in the tick data.

So, in this case, you won't be able to "sway" me on that point.

In live trading however, I have said that there are a few cases which I consider that Pending Orders would be useful (but only a few) and in this context then yes, you may one day be able to sway me!
I don't really care. But I noticed you have balanced your previous point of view.
 
Alain Verleyen: I don't really care. But I noticed you have balanced your previous point of view.
No, I have not! Just because I don't use them, does not mean that I don't know HOW to use them or how to help someone else use them! Plus, I did address one of the FEW exceptions, namely:
... EAs can also be used for aiding and supporting with manual trading and thus need to be able to allow Pending Orders to be used ...

However, for EAs that work fully automatically for 24/5, there is absolutely no advantage in using pending orders and there are in fact disadvantages.
1234
New comment
Reason: