Great EA in backtest! - page 69
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
Version of Meta Trader for running Cyberia Trader
Just give you additional information.
The CT doesn't work well with built 196 and 197. It works best with built 195. So guys, do not upgrade it. Just use built 195.
i have mine set to trade .1 lot only. for now. untill i get it into a couple hundred profit. then I'll allow auto lot.
Just give you additional information. The CT doesn't work well with built 196 and 197. It works best with built 195. So guys, do not upgrade it. Just use built 195.
What is the definition of "doesn't work well"? What effects are caused?
What is the definition of "doesn't work well"? What effects are caused?
It will be a consistant loss for forward trading! Though the back test shows a good result. So just use MT version 195. For those who test and have bad result, you have to check the MT version.
It will be a consistant loss for forward trading! Though the back test shows a good result. So just use MT version 195. For those who test and have bad result, you have to check the MT version.
My demo CT results tend to be good. I use build 197. The one big loss was during NFP
. Interesting: some CT's run on live too and they are often differnt to demo account but mostly good too.
hang on....
perhaps the challenge is in interpreting the results you are getting...
what you describe I have also seen in my test results...
namely that the first one or two months the EA runs on are rough almost no matter what months you start the test on. I have a theory about this.
This EA seems to be running it's own internal simulation from which it derives statistical probabilities which influence it's decisions. It may well be that this EA has to run for a period of time to build up that statistical information before it's decisions become well grounded in that data. If that is the case (and I'm not certain yet because I've not gotten that deep into the code yet) then it's not going to give identical trades over any specific time range depending on how far in advance of encountering that time range the program started. Does that make sense?
In other words my theory is that the EA has to learn by running before it really starts winning because it has to build up it's internal statistical base.
To test this I just ran two tests one starting August 1, 2006 to today and the other starting September 1, 2006 to today. Then I put the results side by side and noticed that there are slight differences in the trades entered in Sept. and Oct. It's possible that this is evidence of the theory being right. There may be other causes but this could support the theory.Some month ago I have tested 3 or 4 experts from a russian site. These experts had a self learning component. The first backtest was bad, the second better and the third one was good. These experts stored a .ini file or something like this in MT. After deleting this file the expert was stupid again. Unfortunately I don't know the side of the programmers but if this would be good for devellopement of CT I can search it again.
Hi everyone,
I'm getting my best results from v1.85f. Why did "we" change from that?
The others don't seem to be producing the same great results.
hi,
can you please post the v1.85f version.....
thanks !!!!
Hi everyone,
I'm getting my best results from v1.85f. Why did "we" change from that?
The others don't seem to be producing the same great results.Here you go. . . it's also on post #333.
I also added 185f2 which I haven't had a chance to test yet.
Elite Subscription
Does anyone know anything about the Exclusive Forum? Do they have access to "superior" EA's or other information?