"No loss" recovery hedging system - page 11

To add comments, please log in or register
Felipe Ponce Aragon
1154
Felipe Ponce Aragon  
Fernando Carreiro:

As I stated in all the analysis that I supplied to you, just because a back-test shows profit, does not mean that it will do so in the "real world". There are hundreds (or thousands) of EAs that show profitable back-tests, yet fail miserably when live.

The reports I detailed out for you, showed all those pitfalls and problems that the so called "recovery" would cause. In fact those very suspicions were reflected on the real trade data that you supplied, and the proof was that your real life results were not so profitable at all (no matter how you tried to justify the differences). You may defend your position as you did at the time, by saying that it was the result of you changing parameters during the course of its runs, but the analysis showed otherwise.

I was reverse engineering it for you, because you only have a closed-source version that is limited to account and broker and will break if major builds are released. So, if it is so profitable, why did you stop working on it and lose interest. In fact you ceased all contact, even though I was providing you with valuable data and insight and offering to code it for free!

Given the well versed knowledge I have of how your various EAs work, and given my experience in both coding and trading, I can emphatically state that they are NOT reliable and that claiming otherwise is misleading.

Dear Fernando,

You forgot what happened but I will say it in short for everyone. Once again I don't sell anything. 

I opened manual trades so that the EA would recover from drawdown. That worked well for a few months and then I list a lot. Before doing that experiment and after it, I used and I'm currently using the EA alone without such experiments, as was explained to Fernando to whom I provided the trades history.

The knowledge acquired by Fernando during our talks was misleading because we did backtests with data that was not from timezone GMT +3. I explained this to him in the previous comment as everyone can read but he ignored it. This EA performs so much better ( in test and real market) in GMT +3  brokers. This is my last reply about this EA, it's OK if my explanation is bit believed.
Felipe Ponce Aragon
1154
Felipe Ponce Aragon  
Fernando Carreiro:
Tip for Felipe: Remember that you provided me with guest access to YOUR broker, YOUR account and YOUR time-zone and that you carried out the back-tests on YOUR VPS under my instructions! So, please do not try to find excuses!
I used your data. Data is set to a specific GMT.
Felipe Ponce Aragon
1154
Felipe Ponce Aragon  
Have a blessed night everyone, again, it's OK if I'm not believed.
Fernando Carreiro
5065
Fernando Carreiro  
Felipe Ponce Aragon:
Dear Fernando,

You forgot what happened but I will say it in short for everyone. Once again I don't sell anything. 

I opened manual trades so that the EA would recover from drawdown. That worked well for a few months and then I list a lot. Before doing that experiment and after it, I used and I'm currently using the EA alone without such experiments, as was explained to Fernando to whom I provided the trades history.

The knowledge acquired by Fernando during our talks was misleading because we did backtests with data that was not from timezone GMT +3. I explained this to him in the previous comment as everyone can read but he ignored it. This EA performs so much better ( in test and real market) in GMT +3  brokers. This is my last reply about this EA, it's OK if my explanation is bit believed.

You are obviously NOT qualified to state that, and you are incorrect in your statement, and I repeated this many times. The data is irrespective of time-zone. For a given liquidity provider and feed source, the price changes at the same time all over the world at exactly the same time no matter what the clock says. When one prepares tick data for a particular broker or time-zone, the time data is automatically corrected for that case with the tools that are used.

The data was in no way incorrect with respect with the your brokers time zone and I even proved that but comparing it to your live results. You are only using that as an excuse to justify the "bad" results, and you know that.

If your intention is to gain a following and making yourself feel GREAT by having people "believe" you, then please go right ahead, but you will only be misleading yourself if you wish to continue trading under that false belief. Its your money!

Again, STOP spreading misinformation!

HousseXZ
586
HousseXZ  
I'm using tick date suit, it costs a lot to buy its licence so I can assume it's a good software

When I choose dukascopy tick data and choose any session on mt4 backtester without correcting it with + or - GMT hour differences I get different results on the tests compared to the time on soft4fx forex strategy tester which uses dukascopy data because the entries would either come earlier or later than the preferred period

So I can tell that Mr.Aragon has a point

But I can't deny the experience of a developer "Mr.Carreiro" as well

Still can't tell if there is a clear final answer to this argument
Marco vd Heijden
Moderator
12989
Marco vd Heijden  

Please do not confuse back test performance with live performance.

Thank you.

HousseXZ
586
HousseXZ  
Marco vd Heijden:

Please do not confuse back test performance with live performance.

Thank you.

Could you elaborate please? Why do we pay for tick data then! 

I get the feeling that this whole business is based on illusions
Marco vd Heijden
Moderator
12989
Marco vd Heijden  
HousseXZ:
 based on illusions

It is if you think that a backtest produces a valid indication of future performance.

It has never been like that and it can never be like that, but there is a group of people that believe otherwise.

This is not a problem as such, but the problem arises when these people start to 'claim' backtest reports as being live results.

Why do you pay for tick data? ask yourself because i don't have an answer for that .

Maybe because you are one of those believers..

HousseXZ
586
HousseXZ  
Marco vd Heijden:

It is if you think that a backtest produces a valid indication of future performance.

It has never been like that and it can never be like that, but there is a group of people that believe otherwise.

This is not a problem as such, but the problem arises when these people start to 'claim' backtest reports as being live results.

Why do you pay for tick data? ask yourself because i don't have an answer for that .

Maybe because you are one of those believers..

So you are a moderator in a website that sells illusive EAs that depends on back tests? You don't feel something is wrong here? 
Marco vd Heijden
Moderator
12989
Marco vd Heijden  
HousseXZ:
So you are a moderator in a website that sells illusive EAs that depends on back tests? You don't feel something is wrong here? 

No i am not.

Who told you that EA's are illusive ?

They are not but the backtests results can be and that is the issue when they are presented as trustworthy.

Who told you that EA's depend on backtests ?

Tell me.

It seems that you are stuck in your own (mis)(dis)beliefs.
To add comments, please log in or register