Set up your tester without updating with the broker.All you backtesting will be without allowing for any spread and insert data without updating with brokers spread.Run autolot and u have compunding without spread and fantastic results
Please advise the drawbacks in buying such systems as advertised.How is such low drawdown and high profit achieved by E A coders.
Have they used the spread...?
Auto Trading Solutions
Can somebody compile an E A like this for me?
I just looked at the backtesting statement and as I see the EAs were coded on open bar (zero bar).
Look at H1 timeframe backtesting (14:12; at 14:13; - it is not H1 close bar even):
414 2006.09.08 14:12 t/p 207 1.00 1.8691 1.8738 1.8691 240.00 48617.09
415 2006.09.08 14:12 sell 208 1.00 1.8717 1.8740 1.8693
416 2006.09.08 14:13 t/p 208 1.00 1.8693 1.8740 1.8693 240.00 48857.09
417 2006.09.08 14:13 sell 209 1.00 1.8716 1.8739 1.8692
418 2006.09.08 14:14 t/p 209 1.00 1.8692 1.8739 1.8692 240.00 49097.09
419 2006.09.08 14:14 sell 210 1.00 1.8715 1.8738 1.8691
420 2006.09.08 14:15 t/p 210 1.00 1.8691 1.8738 1.8691 240.00 49337.09
421 2006.09.08 14:15 sell 211 1.00 1.8713 1.8736 1.8689
422 2006.09.08 14:17 t/p 211 1.00 1.8689 1.8736 1.8689 240.00 49577.09
423 2006.09.08 14:17 sell 212 1.00 1.8709 1.8732 1.8685
424 2006.09.08 14:18 t/p 212 1.00 1.8685 1.8732 1.8685 240.00 49817.09
425 2006.09.08 14:18 sell 213 1.00 1.8709 1.8732 1.8685
426 2006.09.08 14:19 t/p 213 1.00 1.8685 1.8732 1.8685 240.00 50057.09
427 2006.09.08 14:19 sell 214 1.00 1.8704 1.8727 1.8680
428 2006.09.08 14:20 t/p 214 1.00 1.8680 1.8727 1.8680 240.00 50297.09
429 2006.09.08 14:20 sell 215 1.00 1.8704 1.8727 1.8680
430 2006.09.08 14:21 t/p 215 1.00 1.8680 1.8727 1.8680 240.00 50537.09
431 2006.09.08 14:21 sell 216 1.00 1.8708 1.8731 1.8684
432 2006.09.08 14:23 t/p 216 1.00 1.8684 1.8731 1.8684 240.00 50777.09
433 2006.09.08 14:23 sell 217 1.00 1.8707 1.8730 1.8683
434 2006.09.08 14:24 t/p 217 1.00 1.8683 1.8730 1.8683 240.00 51017.09
435 2006.09.08 14:24 sell 218 1.00 1.8707 1.8730 1.8683
436 2006.09.08 14:26 t/p 218 1.00 1.8683 1.8730 1.8683 240.00 51257.09
437 2006.09.08 14:26 sell 219 1.00 1.8693 1.8716 1.8669
438 2006.09.08 14:44 t/p 219 1.00 1.8669 1.8716 1.8669 240.00 51497.09
Backtesting results on every tick modeling quality is not relable in this case.
Of course there are some coders who are coding on open bar only but they are telling it to the users.
If the seller is selling EAs based on backtesting results only so the seller is scammer.
If the seller is coding on open bar and not telling the customers about it so the seller is double scammer.
If the seller is coding on open bar, not telling the customers about it and using every tick model backtesting as a proof of his good performance so the seller is Exceptional scammer.
Because not all the people understand about particularities and differencies about backtesting, different types of coding and forward testing.
I think this thread should be merged with traders joking thread.
here are what tricks ea sellers use
Why not let us collect all the different tricks E A sellers use to inflate figures.There are more posts I will write about inflating systems results by private sellers
It perhaps deserves its own thread
I don't know about spread. As I know spread is included in MT4 backtesting.
It is something on the open bar coding. Nothing wrong on open bar coding but backtesting on every tick modeling quality can not be proof of the good performance because of that.
Look at their statements: 15 or 20 orders were opened within H1 bar. It is not trading on close bar. And one order is open and close withn 1 minutes with +20 pips; the order order was open and close within ione minutes in the about +20 pips and 20 times like that during the H1 bar. It was coding on open bar.
What is coding on open bar?
Just attach 2 MA indicators to M1 timeframe (period 3 and 5) and we may see 5 or 10 crossing withing 1 bar sometimes (if GBPJPY for example). If EA is open the order on every crossing by ticks so it should be different coding.
Nothing wrong with coding on open bar but the seller must mention it and customers should know. But some sellers are coding on open bar especially to get better results on backtesting.
Look at the Firebird 0.65 forward testing results (open bar) for two files (good one and bad one inpips) and you will understand all.
All those cases are on this thread https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/174805
Because how to say seriously that seller is scammer? We are not court yet We may say just allegorically ... to refresh discussion.
But we can say: "sellers are joking" and it will be very flexible explanation. Just joking...
Because people will buy anyway. They are buying everything you know ...
Look at this post: https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/174805/page2
I created the joke about some "tradng system" long time ago.
And some user wanted to buy by next post https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/174805/page2
If we are keeping this thread like that so it may be serious discussion with some attacking on some "allegorical"/hipothetical seller and between each other and it will not be forex market already.
But if we are joking so who cares ... just joking .. to make our life easy.
Who will buy the system if seller is joking?
We are technical forum.
newdigital, could you be more specific about why trading at the Ask and Bid (bar 0) is, 'cheating' so to speak?
Attached are the equity curves of one of my Scalpers (10pip, 1:1 r/r) that shows spectacular results in Backtests but performs absymally when forward tested so it clearly is not profitable.
What I want to know is why exactly, so I can stop wasting time on stuff that does not work in reality.
Also, one of the 'tell-tale' sign that an EA's results are bogus seems to be what happens during the last 6-9 months of the backtest - usually the equity curve turns down abruptly. This occurs with all of my 'profitable' EA's unfortunately and I have yet to hear a convincing reason as to why this happens - more specifically, why does an inherently unprofitable EA seem very profitable up until the final months of the test? Anyone who has been using Metatrader for a reasonable period will have noticed this last '6-9 month' problem - note that 1 year ago, you had the same poor results for the last 6-9 months even though this period now shows up as profitable in backtests.....
The idea that tick data gathered realtime over the poorly-performing interval is the reason doesn't stand up as it also occurs when Metatrader is freshly installed. Could it be that all the historical data, apart form the last 6-9 months, that the Brokers supplies is 'artificial', generated in much the same way that the backtester interpolates its tick data? Also, I found that running the same EA, settings etc. on different broker platforms produces almost identical results so the all seem to be supplying the same crappy historical data...
I should have more on this soon as I am in the process of getting my hands on 'quality' historical data.....
I am not talking about 'cheating'. That is why I moved those posts to this thread to 'take it easy'.
Nothing wrong in coding on open bar. I know that some coders are coding and there is some financial funds using EA coded on open bar also.
But there are some particularities.
There are very different results for backtesting and forward testing for EAs coded on open bar, or on high/low of the close bar. Sorry I am not a coder. I just experimented for many years and made some conclusion.
Do you know MaChannel by Codersguru? If I remember it was coded on high/low of the close bar (some ma mode or something - don't remember). So, backtesting results do not match forward testing. I don't know why. May be it is something with strategy tester in Metatrader ...
For example I am having very good results with this EA for North Finance broker. Forward testing. Backtesting on same period are completely different. And Codersguru used this EA for last Metaquotes contest and EA did not win: I used North Finance broker and metaquotes used IBFX broker for last contest. And high/low data is very different for NF and IBFX sometimes ... And we got opposite results: IBFX contest was lost and I got very good results for same period of time (I repeated the trades with NF broker as Codersguru and Igorad asked me about it during that time).
If somebody is selling EA based on backtesting results and not telling the people how it was coded (open bar, high low of the bar) so it is not good.
The other example is Firebird. As I see it was coded on close bar, high/low of the close bar and open bar (simultaniously). i am not a coder so it is difficult for me to understand how this EA is selecting the order and which type (close bar, open bar) should be opened in which day of the week. But I know that forward testing results are very diferent from backtesting.
The other case is Brainwashing EAs. Those versions are using iTrend indicator as icustom. And this indicator is showing differently with different broker. May be because of that, may be some other cases, but backtesting and forward testing of this EA is very different. EA was coded on close bar only.
It is nothing with losses. Simple diferently. Not the same (backtesting and forward testing).
The other cases are MTF EAs. There are 2 MTF EAs in elite section. All of them were coded on close bar so that's fine. But if MTF EA was coded on open bar concerning more highier timeframe so the backtesting will not match forward testing.
I only wanted to say that it is very difficult to understand about EAs performance based on backtesting results only because backtesting is not telling the true in many cases. And if the seller is not telling us some particularities (without disclosing the system of course) so backtesting is nothing in this case.
Nothing wrong on open bar coding. I know one coder (he is not a member of our forum yet - he is posting his EAs on metaquotes codebase) and he is coding on open bar only. And there are some very very good ideas about tick indicators, tick MACD, tick MA and so on: i mean indicators to trade on open bar by ticks. And in this case it may be very very good scalpers and other EAs based on open bar.
But it should be mentioned always: coded on close bar, open bar, MTF with open bar for highier timeframe, high/low of the bar and so on.
Otherwise people will be confused and will consider backtesting as useless for all EAs. But backtesting is not useless if we know how it was coded.
And there is some other case.: gaps in data. Especially during the news events. It is not often case but today I found two gaps for august on GBPJPY M1 data when I was checking some indicators for re-paintng. It may be also the reason why backtesting is not the same with forward testing.
But generally backtesting must be the same with forward testing in most of the cases. Shoud be ...
newdigital, thank you for you lengthy response.
What this must mean is that the Backtester simply does not work properly when using 'current prices' to enter trades, particularily for scalping strategies. I spend quite a lot of time coding and have been able to detect no errors with Metatrader while in visual mode when opening trades before the current bar closes. I also have checked and it seems to handle High/Low of the current bar correctly.
Also, one could argue that scalping at the close of bar is doomed to failure as you are working with 'old' prices - even on M1 charts 60 seconds could be viewed as 'ancient' prices when you're looking for 5-10 pips!
Please don't think I am disagreeing with you - I am not! There is something definitely 'wrong' with Metatrader, I just have not been able to find out what it is.......
Most of the commercial EAS come out after an EA has done well in the precceding year or two years.The EA trendmasters test the EA on all the brokers .The brokers where the EA performs best on backtests becomes the chosen broker..The E A is optimised for backtests for the last few tears.The buyers buy the EA and use it at different brokers where the performance was inferior and find they start losing money.
Discount all the claims the sellers make and look at the worst performance of the EA AT THE LOWEST PERFORMING BROKER , and if the performance is good buy it.A friend of mine bought an EA from the commercial section ,the Ea makes 1000 pips a year on backtests but the trendmaster EA owner claims it makes 1800 pips.The E A is a similiar copy of an E A available in the Elite forum which costs $100 less .
I test all my EAS on usd/yen and if it performs profitably ,then I consider the EA as robust.In the Elite section Newdigital has very little succes on testing USD/YEN for great results.Usd/yen is not trendy and performs poorly in sideways market...it has very little support and very little resistance