How are signal % gain calculated? Can they be gamed - page 5
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
No, I did not misread your posts. There is a difference between the Subscriber never making withdrawals and the the Provider never making withdrawals.
Even if the subscriber NEVER makes a withdrawal, as soon as the provider does make a withdrawal then it messes things up and the hypothetical growth is then no longer possible.
Just as I replied to the Eleni, I am not saying that the TWR is wrong, I am just saying that it is no longer achievable as soon as the provider makes a withdrawal, even if the subscriber does not, which can make it misleading in those cases.
For those signals where the provider NEVER makes a withdrawal, then TWR is indeed achievable.
Please don't start using so much bold text. I never talk about subscribers and his %growth or about subscriber withdrawal. Anyway, now that we agree about TWR, let's talk about subscriber side.
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
How are signal % gain calculated? Can they be gamed
Fernando Carreiro, 2018.12.20 22:08
No, you will not! That is what I have been trying to explain but have been unable to put it into words properly.
In order to achieve the hypothetical gain, the subscriber would need to increase his balance or adjust his % in order to offset the reduction caused by the provider's withdrawal.
For example, lets say the signal balance is $1000 and the subscriber also has a $1000 balance and is using 50% signal ratio, so that when the signal gains 10% ($100) , the subscriber will be gaining 5% ($50).
When the provider takes out 20% of his balance, bringing it down to $800, a 10% gain is now $80 and for the subscriber it will now be only $40 even though he did not make any withdrawal at all on his own account. In other words, he is not even maintaining the simple growth any more, and his position size drops instead of increasing geometrically and the hypothetical compounding cannot be achieved even if he does not make any withdrawals.
The only way for the subscriber to maintain the natural compounding effect, would be to either increase is % of the signal, from 50% to 62.5% or increase his balance to $1250, and he would have to calculate and do this on every single withdrawal the provider does in order to compensate and achieve the hypothetical % growth. This is obviously not feasible and not in the spirit of the metrics that are calculated and shown by MetaQuotes.
Again it's not correct. It will not be $40 because the volume ratio will change.
I will take other numbers as yours are confusing (you took the same $1,000 before and after the first trades). Some fixed data to start with a volume ratio of 100%:
Without rounding (volume and volume ratio) the growth percentage would be exactly the same on both side. Withdrawal doesn't matter !
Please don't start using so much bold text. I never talk about subscribers and his %growth or about subscriber withdrawal. Anyway, now that we agree about TWR, let's talk about subscriber side.
Again it's not correct. It will not be $40 because the volume ratio will change.
I will take other numbers as yours are confusing (you took the same $1,000 before and after the first trades). Some fixed data to start with a volume ratio of 100%:
Without rounding (volume and volume ratio) the growth percentage would be exactly the same on both side. Withdrawal doesn't matter !
I don't agree, but to be honest, I really am not interested in debating it.
I am not angry or being sarcastic or anything like that. I just don't feel like defending my points because signals don't interest me much and I am not really worried about this.
So whomever is correct or not, I really don't feel the need to discuss it further. Sorry!
I don't agree, but to be honest, I really am not interested in debating it.
I am not angry or being sarcastic or anything like that. I just don't feel like defending my points because signals don't interest me much and I am not really worried about this.
So whomever is correct or not, I really don't feel the need to discuss it further. Sorry!
You are incredible, there is nothing to agree or disagree, the numbers are talking by themselves. You can't just admit you was wrong, it's a pity.
Anyway, that close the topic.
Why are you always so confrontational with everyone?
Why is it that you have to be always be so arrogant?
You cannot claim that I am wrong and that you are the Absolute God of Truth just because I don't feel like debating it!
Well, if you need your daily "ego boost" then you are welcome to it! I just don't agree and your numbers can be debated. I just don't feel like doing it! Just respect that!
Gentlemen, use your time wisely.
Why are you always so confrontational with everyone?
Why is it that you have to be always be so arrogant?
You cannot claim that I am wrong and that you are the Absolute God of Truth just because I don't feel like debating it!
Well, if you need your daily "ego boost" then you are welcome to it! I just don't agree and your numbers can be debated. I just don't feel like doing it! Just respect that!
Every time we are discussing it finished the same. When you see you can't convince me (or others) you start with personal stuff and you give up. Just don't start discussion you don't want to finish. Or if you want to finish, just said you prefer to stop but without implying to other is wrong ("I don't agree"...really !).
I am not arrogant, it's too easy to say "Your numbers are not correct but I don't want to prove it". I never claimed anything, I proved it, unless demonstrated otherwise. Please provide me 1 link where I don't prove what I said ! Or where I was wrong I didn't want to admit ? I don't accept your continuous personal attacks, without any proof. On the contrary I can provide you several links where I admitted to be wrong without problem, and it's not a fault if most of the time I am right. Call that arrogant if you want, be stop projecting your own weaknesses on me.
In all the current topic you claimed incorrect things, you stated that the provider was "fudging", that Metaquotes provides wrong statistics, that TWR was not calculated correctly, etc...then you change your mind because it's Eleni signal, about TWR which you finally admit is correctly calculated. But I suppose I (we) should let you say what you want without reacting, is it what you want ?
When you don't let people say incorrect or wrong things silently, it's not a surprise a part of them don't accept it and accuse you to be "confrontational".
I don't pretend to understand how growth is calculated, but I do know that sometimes it makes no sense to me whatsoever.
This was brought to my attention
Now it shows the initial balance as $10
But the start equity is around $122
Surely any growth should be based on the equity at the start date and not a very low balance?
It seems to me that with a start equity of $122 plus deposits of $213 ($335)
current equity of $388 equates to $53 profit and not $165.
How can growth be calculated at 1,185% ??
In fact there is no actual growth until the point shown below
so the growth should be something around 15%
If the PM system is working I will send links to the signal to Alain,Fernando and Eleni so that you can share your thoughts if interested.
I don't pretend to understand how growth is calculated, but I do know that sometimes it makes no sense to me whatsoever.
This was brought to my attention
Now it shows the initial balance as $10
But the start equity is around $122
Surely any growth should be based on the equity at the start date and not a very low balance?
It seems to me that with a start equity of $122 plus deposits of $213 ($335)
current equity of $388 equates to $53 profit and not $165.
How can growth be calculated at 1,185% ??
In fact there is no actual growth until the point shown below
so the growth should be something around 15%
If the PM system is working I will send links to the signal to Alain,Fernando and Eleni so that you can share your thoughts if interested.
Keith, here we have to do with a 'unbelievable' but true signal growth.
If you study its trading history carefully you will see that on the 19th of November that this signal was published to MQL5, it had $10 of initial balance (blue line) and about 40 open trades of 0.01 lot (opened from 15th to 19th of December, before the signal was published to MQL5) with a floating profit of another $108, so that explains the $118 starting equity on the Equity chart.
I know that opening 0.40 lot GBPJPY orders with a $10 balance seems unreal, but this was done gradually exploiting the floating profit of previously opened positions.
Its out of this world I know, that is why these performances don't last long.
I don't pretend to understand how growth is calculated, but I do know that sometimes it makes no sense to me whatsoever.
This was brought to my attention
Now it shows the initial balance as $10
But the start equity is around $122
Surely any growth should be based on the equity at the start date and not a very low balance?
It seems to me that with a start equity of $122 plus deposits of $213 ($335)
current equity of $388 equates to $53 profit and not $165.
How can growth be calculated at 1,185% ??
In fact there is no actual growth until the point shown below
so the growth should be something around 15%
If the PM system is working I will send links to the signal to Alain,Fernando and Eleni so that you can share your thoughts if interested.
Equity has nothing to do with growth, only balance.
Attached a OpenOffice Calc file where I took the trading history and add formula to show you how growth is calculated. I got a slight difference (1180% instead of 1185%), maybe due to some rounding in mql5 system where I didn't round at all, not sure. But you will get the idea.
Even if compounding lots is considered, the calculations is incorrect, because on other signals where there are no withdrawals or extra deposits the Growth does not get inflated this way and is correct.
So users, knowing this could be using the withdrawals to actively "fudge" and inflate the metrics compared to other signals that are not using such tactics. It is clearly miscalculated by MetaQuotes.
EDIT: It has always been the premise that Withdrawals and Deposits should not influence the growth calculation, but clearly that is not the case!
EDIT2: These incorrect calculations opens up a door to a great deal of abuse by signal providers!
They know and they use it. 4090% is 10000.00+++ profit on 250.00 deposit. MQL is using wrong formula to calculate profit. The true profit in this case is ~670%. Good luck