Discussion of article "Brute force approach to patterns search (Part II): Immersion"

 

New article Brute force approach to patterns search (Part II): Immersion has been published:

In this article we will continue discussing the brute force approach. I will try to provide a better explanation of the pattern using the new improved version of my application. I will also try to find the difference in stability using different time intervals and timeframes.

Let us start with EURUSD H1. Testing was performed in the interval 2010.01.01-2020.01.01. Its purpose was to find a global pattern:


The results are not very attractive, and this is all that we managed to squeeze out of the pair in the given time interval. We can identify a global pattern, although it is not so clear. I used 50 candlesticks in the formula for the brute force. The result is not as good as we could expect, but it is necessary. You will see further what for. Let us test the same segment in the forward period 2020.01.01-2020.11.01, in order to understand its future performance:

The results is quite understandable. This analysis turned out to be insufficient for trying to profit from the pattern continuation. General, if we analyze global patterns, then the purpose should be to find a pattern that will work for at least several more years, otherwise such an analysis is completely useless. At the beginning of the chart the pattern continues to work, but after six months it is inverted. So such an analysis may be enough for trading for several months, provided we manage to find good enough parameters of the initial test. In this case analysis was performed by the P_Factor value. This parameter is similar to Profit Factor, but it takes values in the range of [0...1] . 1 - 100% of profit. In the first tab, the highest value of this parameter was about 0.029. The average value of all found variants was about 0.02.

Author: Evgeniy Ilin

 

Instead of wasting time on programming and searching for trading systems, why not turn to logic?

TheForex market is not a receptacle of random events, but a business that has owners. They are the quote providers, the liquidity providers of last resort, and the ultimate beneficiaries. If the market participants are generally successful, the Forex owners will be at a loss and the business will not be able to survive for long. And since the market exists, they are in profit and the participants are in loss. How does this happen? This is possible only in one case: the price behaviour reacts to the positioning of all participants and the price predominantly moves against the bulk of participants. Therefore, finding profitable trading systems is a task that has no solution. You have correctly noticed that over time the market changes and the profitability of the found trading system falls and is inverted. But the market does not change randomly. It reacts purposefully to the behaviour of participants. And it does not matter how you create a trading system. Whether by analysing the patterns of the past, or you will dream about it, or flip a coin, as soon as you start to act, the market will start to change against you.

Is it possible to earn on such a market? Certainly, individual participants can make money. But, it will be a chain of random wins. The only trading system that will allow you to make money not by chance, and take some money from other participants, but not from the market owners, is the system that predicts the behaviour of the majority of participants and works against them. Is it possible to predict the future behaviour of participants based on historical data? I think not. But if I am wrong, and it is possible, it is not by chance that I wrote above that the price predominantly moves against the bulk of participants. That means that in those moments when it will move in favour of the bulk of participants, it will move against such a trading system. And, when working with high leverage, there will often not be enough margin to weather such periods. And, when working without leverage, earnings will be unattractive.

 
Alex_57:

Instead of wasting time programming and searching for trading systems, why not turn to logic?

TheForex market is not a receptacle of random events, but a business that has owners. They are the quote providers, the liquidity providers of last resort, and the ultimate beneficiaries. If the market participants are generally successful, the Forex owners will be at a loss and the business will not be able to survive for long. And since the market exists, they are in profit and the participants are in loss. How does this happen? This is possible only in one case: the price behaviour reacts to the positioning of all participants and the price predominantly moves against the bulk of participants. Therefore, finding profitable trading systems is a task that has no solution. You have correctly noticed that over time the market changes and the profitability of the found trading system falls and is inverted. But the market does not change randomly. It reacts purposefully to the behaviour of participants. And it does not matter how you create a trading system. Whether you analyse the patterns of the past, or you dream about it, or flip a coin, as soon as you start to act, the market will start to change against you.

Is it possible to earn on such a market? Certainly, individual participants can make money. But, it will be a chain of random wins. The only trading system that will allow you to make money not by chance, and take some money from other participants, but not from the market owners, is the system that predicts the behaviour of the majority of participants and works against them. Is it possible to predict the future behaviour of participants based on historical data? I think not. But if I am wrong, and it is possible, it is not by chance that I wrote above that the price predominantly moves against the bulk of participants. That means that in those moments when it will move in favour of the bulk of participants, it will move against such a trading system. And, when working with high leverage, there will often not be enough margin to weather such periods. And, when working without leverage, earnings will be unattractive.

Actually you said the same thing as I did, just in simpler language ) The whole point is that you need to be not in the main crowd, but in the part that trades the other way round, then you will win, I have an Expert Advisor that implements this principle. Really the formula of the market is a game against the masses, that is if there is a pattern then the crowd follows it, and if it follows then you can start playing against it and the crowd loses )). It's nice that there are those who see deeply ) . The main thing here is to train the strongest pattern and everything will be fine, and to train based on the duration of its work and parameters, that's what I was trying to convey. On different samples differently it is necessary, on short ones we should immediately invert and on global ones a little bit on continuation and then stop. I agree about random wins, but if the entries will not be in the main crowd, the market will react in your favour, i.e. the market itself will help you. Properly applying this knowledge you can earn on any market, with the help of such software it can be easily practised. And there will always be a lot of simple people who trades with their hands and creates liquidity, there are a lot of Expert Advisors that do the same thing, this niche will always be. Forex will not remain without profit even if you will take some crumbs from them by unravelling their principles. And about"Is it possible to predict the future behaviour of participants based on historical data? Ithink not" you are wrong, my tests tell me exactly that. This is why the pattern invert happens, partly because the market starts to act against the players. Another thing is that you can't do it with manuals and other models of analysis, a manual trader can't do it, either with special advisors or software like mine.

 

I wish you luck, of course.

I will throw you one more logical conclusion. Development of trading systems on the basis of analysing the patterns of the past is based on the postulate that market participants will behave in a similar way in similar situations. You are not the only one who develops a trading system and optimises parameters on one piece of history and then makes a control run on another piece of history - your forward test. Since the community of grail seekers has come to the conclusion that this is necessary, it means that in many cases (and maybe in all cases) the results of your forward test are significantly different from the results of the history section where the optimisation was performed. How did this happen to you? After all, you were not really trading and could not damage the market owners. There was no reason for the market to change because of your tests, and even if there was, it could not be done retroactively on the forward section. This shows that the market reacted not to your actions, but to the change of behaviour of real trade participants. And this calls into question the fairness of the postulate about similar actions of market participants in similar situations.

 
Alex_57:

This is only possible in one case: the price behaviour reacts to the positioning of all participants and the price predominantly moves against the bulk of the participants.

This has been noticed quite a long time ago and formalised within the framework of game theory in the form of a model known as a minority game. The simplest variant of such a model is the El Farol bar problem. Such models are a subset of congestion games known in game theory and economics.

There is no practical use of this science (for trading). Except that it gives an opportunity to understand the reason of non-stationarity of prices and explains the impossibility of the eternal Grail.

 
Alex_57:

I wish you luck, of course.

I will throw you one more logical conclusion. Development of trading systems on the basis of analysing the patterns of the past is based on the postulate that market participants will behave in a similar way in similar situations. You are not the only one who develops a trading system and optimises parameters on one piece of history, and then makes a control run on another piece of history - your forward test. Since the community of grail seekers has come to the conclusion that this is necessary, it means that in many cases (and maybe in all cases) the results of your forward test are significantly different from the results of the history section where the optimisation was performed. How did this happen to you? After all, you were not really trading and could not have caused damage to the market owners. There was no reason for the market to change because of your tests, and even if there were, it could not be done retroactively on the forward section. This shows that the market reacted not to your actions, but to the change of behaviour of real trade participants. And this calls into question the fairness of the postulate about similar actions of market participants in similar situations.

The share of one small trader like me in the market is negligible in comparison with all other players, the market will not react to me, it will react to the whole mass, and if my weight in this mass tends to zero, then it comes out that I can do what I want without fear of market reaction, rather the broker will see it and will start to put sticks in the wheels. And as long as your volumes are small, nobody will touch you with a finger. About the test, you would not see any differences on the real market, and if they will be, they will be proportional to your trading volumes and your activity, more precisely to say the liquidity that you are creating

Трейдер - советы трейдерам, видеоуроки форекс - Блоги трейдеров и аналитика финансовых рынков
Трейдер - советы трейдерам, видеоуроки форекс - Блоги трейдеров и аналитика финансовых рынков
  • www.mql5.com
Трейдер — человек, которые торгует и стремится извлечь прибыль из процесса торговли. Чаще всего трейдеры торгуют ценными бумагами (акциями, облигациями, фьючерсами, опционами) на фондовой бирже, также
 
Evgeniy Ilin:

The share of one small trader like me in the market is negligible in comparison with all other players, the market will not react to me, it will react to the whole mass, and if my weight in this mass tends to zero, it means that I can do what I want without fear of market reaction, rather the broker will see it and will start to put sticks in the wheels. And as long as your volumes are small, nobody will touch you with a finger. About the test, you would not see any differences on the real market, and if they will be, they will be proportional to your trading volumes and your activity, more precisely to say the liquidity that you are creating

The market will react not to you personally, but to the total number of players who shared your position - the number of possible choices is small. You are either in the minority and win, or in the majority and lose. Obviously, the probability of being in the majority is always slightly higher than the probability of being in the minority.

 
Aleksey Nikolayev:

The market will not react to you personally, but to the total number of players who share your position - the number of possible choices is small. You are either in the minority and win, or in the majority and lose. Obviously, the probability of being in the majority is always slightly higher than the probability of being in the minority.

Agreed, but you and I are smarter than the majority ) . We stay out of the crowd ) . Look at the graphs of regularities, in fact it is a crowd, and we can quickly grab something and get away before we are trampled, or we can sit on the fence and wait until everything starts to go in the opposite direction, and then we can also grab a little bit and jump out again. That's the only way it works)) . A little bit at a time and carefully we can, and as soon as we start to be greedy we immediately become part of the crowd.

 
Alex_57:

Theforex market is not a receptacle of random events, but a business that has owners.

!!! Can I know all of them by name?

 
Evgeniy Ilin:

I agree, but you and I are smarter than most ) . We won't get involved in the crowd ). Look at the graphs of regularities, in essence it is a crowd, and we can quickly grab something and get away before we are trampled, and we can sit on the fence and wait until everything starts to go in the opposite direction, and then we can also grab a little and jump out again. That's the only way it works)) . A little bit at a time and carefully we can, and as soon as we start being greedy we immediately become part of the crowd.

We're also prettier and younger. Okay, just prettier.)

Probably, I rely more on the fact that due to inefficiency of real markets there are moments (market states) when the majority is right. Accordingly, the probability of winning increases. However, the probability of losing in case of a mistake also increases (although its probability decreases).

 
Aleksey Nikolayev:

And we're also prettier and younger. Okay, just prettier.)

I guess I rely more on the fact that due to the inefficiency of real markets, there are moments (market states) when the majority is right. Accordingly, the probability of winning increases. However, the probability of losing in case of a mistake also increases (although its probability decreases).

Here it is necessary to operate with mathematical expectation of winning ) it is also as a separate tool of manipulation of players, give them a little bit to win small deals and then catch all the fat moose ) . At the psychological level such a loss is even easier to bear, say here we have 10 wins in a row and one moose that ate everything )) and so it's just bad luck, "we convince ourselves that such a moose will not happen because we are the lords of the market" ))), or we'll turn on the martin and we'll win back anyway ))) . That's why the crowd will always be in the minus ) ) and we with proper skill and we must abuse it