In testing, minute data is considered more reliable.
Are minute bars more reliable? Isn't tick data the last resort? Why do we even need real tick data if it's not taken into account?
In my naivety, I used to do this: I was testing on minute bars, then I was testing on ticks, then I was testing on real ticks as a final precision check. Now I understand that the third check does not make much sense.
No need to take the sentence out of context. The phrase sounds like this:
As you can see, if you don't try to manipulate, it turns out that you misinterpreted the reference.
I didn't manipulate anything. The reference clearly states that the minute bars are of paramount importance. For lack of tick data - ticks are generated according to minute bars.
In my opinion, the minute TF should be formed from real ticks in the "Real ticks" mode, otherwise there is no sense in this mode.
GOLD-6.17,H1: testing of Experts\fxsaber\Test2.ex5 from2017.04.0300:00 to 2017.04.0800:00 started
GOLD-6.17 : real ticks begin from2017.04.0300:00:00
final balance 100000.00 EUR
GOLD-6.17,H1: 145777 ticks, 70 bars generated. Environment synchronized in0:00:01.388. Test passed in0:00:00.062 (including ticks preprocessing 0:00:00.031).
And here is the number of real ticks
This is Metaquotes-Demo.
It turns out that the real ticks are 147700 for the week, while the tester in its most accurate mode gives 145777 of unknown ticks.
There are several M1 bars missing and since the landmark is on them, the tester uses less ticks than it really was.
M1-bars are formed when there is a flipper price. If there is not, there is no bar. And the fact that there were bid/ask ticks at that time is ignored!
This means that the problem is not only in the tester, but also in the algorithm of bar formation.
It's better to look at long futures, the picture there is more clear.
Exactly at long futures this situation, as I wrote above, most often happens.
You are right, I'll just show the proof of this situation more clearly
GOLD-9.17,H1: testing of Experts\fxsaber\Test2.ex5 from2017.04.0300:00 to 2017.04.0800:00 started
GOLD-9.17 : real ticks begin from2017.04.0300:00:00
final balance 100000.00 EUR
GOLD-9.17,H1: 5918 ticks, 39 bars generated. Environment synchronized in0:00:00.032. Test passed in0:00:00.046.
The real ticks are 116844, the tester ticks in the most precise mode are 5918. A modest 20 times less.
SZY A refutation of the hypothesis that this situation is caused by the tester skipping of identical ticks
In testing, minute data is considered more reliable.
Are minute bars more reliable? Isn't tick data the last resort? Why do we even need real tick data if it's not taken into account?
In my naivety, I used to do this: I was testing on minute bars, then I was testing on ticks, then I was testing on real ticks as a final precision check. Now I understand that the third check does not make much sense.
The legs grow from here
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/188047
As you can see, if you don't try to manipulate, it turns out that you misinterpreted the reference.No need to take the sentence out of context. The phrase sounds like this:
I didn't manipulate anything. The reference clearly states that the minute bars are of paramount importance. For lack of tick data - ticks are generated according to minute bars.
In my opinion, the minute TF should be formed from real ticks in the "Real ticks" mode, otherwise there is no sense in this mode.
In my opinion, the minute TF should be formed from real ticks in the mode "Real ticks", otherwise there is no sense in this mode.
Focusing on the minute history and leads to a situation where the real ticks from 02.04.17 to 08.04.17
And the tester uses ticks only for 88 existing minute bars. All other ticks exist only somewhere in ...
And here is the number of real ticks
This is Metaquotes-Demo.
It turns out that the real ticks are 147700 for the week, while the tester in its most accurate mode gives 145777 of unknown ticks.
Tester Log
And here is the number of real ticks
This is Metaquotes-Demo.
It turns out that the real ticks are 147700 for the week, and the tester in its most accurate mode gives 145777 of unknown ticks.
The tester uses less ticks than it was in reality, because it is oriented on them.
better look at long futures, the picture is more clear there
There are several M1 bars missing and since the landmark is on them, the tester uses less ticks than it really was.
M1-bars are formed when there is a flipper price. If there is not, there is no bar. And the fact that there were bid/ask ticks at that time is ignored!
This means that the problem is not only in the tester, but also in the algorithm of bar formation.
It's better to look at long futures, the picture there is more clear.
Exactly at long futures this situation, as I wrote above, most often happens.
You are right, I'll just show the proof of this situation more clearly
The real ticks are 116844, the tester ticks in the most precise mode are 5918. A modest 20 times less.
SZY A refutation of the hypothesis that this situation is caused by the tester skipping of identical ticks
ResultOnly 4 identical ticks could be missed.
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
Libraries: Price_Compare
fxsaber, 2016.10.19 17:18
{
string flag = "";
#define TICKFLAG_MACRO(A) flag += ((bool)(tickflag & TICK_FLAG_##A)) ? " TICK_FLAG_" + #A : "";
TICKFLAG_MACRO(BID)
TICKFLAG_MACRO(ASK)
TICKFLAG_MACRO(LAST)
TICKFLAG_MACRO(VOLUME)
TICKFLAG_MACRO(BUY)
TICKFLAG_MACRO(SELL)
#undef TICKFLAG_MACRO
if (flag == "")
flag = " FLAG_UNKNOWN (" + (string)tickflag + ")";
return(flag);
}
#define TOSTRING(A) " " + #A + " = " + (string)Tick.A
string TickToString( const MqlTick &Tick )
{
return(TOSTRING(time) + "." + (string)IntegerToString(Tick.time_msc %1000, 3, '0') +
TOSTRING(bid) + TOSTRING(ask) + TOSTRING(last)+ TOSTRING(volume) + GetTickFlag(Tick.flags));
}
void OnStart()
{
MqlTick Tick;
if (SymbolInfoTick(_Symbol, Tick))
Print(TickToString(Tick));
}
Translating MqlTick to string
Unreadable:
It's unreadable:
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing
MetaEditor build 1463
fxsaber, 2016.11.10 10:42
It all depends on the goals.