Questions from a "dummy" - page 119
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
Sometimes a position can stay closed for a minute or even 5 minutes.
is written in the "Profit" column = started
On the screen - like this
How can I see programmatically whether there are such positions or not?
So, you can control the optimization process from your code right during optimization by collecting data of any size (not only one double) in real time.
This allows you to write powerful distributed task handlers for any domain.
Will it be possible to run optimization itself directly from the Expert Advisor running in realtime?
In other words, will the Expert Advisor itself be able to run optimization?
P.S. Just then you could write an Expert Advisor that would run optimization by itself and choose the best option and optimize itself.
Will it be possible to run the optimisation itself directly from the Expert Advisor running in real-time?
In other words, will the Expert Advisor itself be able to run the optimization?
P.S. In that case, you could write an Expert Advisor, which would run the optimization, select the best option and optimize itself.
MetaDriver 2012.03.19 21:13 #
Yes, yes! And make recursion work, at least on 3-4 levels. Otherwise the cloud's just sitting idle. Let it wake up and finally rise to its full height and rain money...!
))))
And a question. May I enquire about the meaning of "And to make recursion work, at least on 3-4 levels. ". Interesting, though. ))
))))
And a question. Can I ask the meaning of "And to make recursion work, at least by 3-4 levels. ". Interesting, though. ))
Well. We have called optimization function (1) from an Expert Advisor. So, it has jumped into the optimizer and is being optimized. And here again we can see how urgent his right to self-improvement is. I.e. during each optimization run the optimizer runs through history with some parameters. And as a wise (by our labors!) individual he realizes that he is incomplete in his settings. He has a (natural!) need to improve them. Why should we (or rather they - the meta-quotes!) prevent him from such a noble impulse? On what grounds? He has every right, the same as his parent on the chart, in my opinion. Otherwise discrimination is evident. Since we have a plethora of tester agents in our network, we have no moral grounds to deny him the right to (2) his own optimization. And his (3) children and (4) grandchildren. I do not know about the great-grandchildren, because there will probably not be enough cores for all of them. Great-grandchildren will be too tired. Although, of course, if there are free cores left, let them go, "there is always a way for the young! Anyway, as long as there are free cores in the cloud, I believe that we must not forbid a call to optimizer from optimizer. Otherwise, justice will again be trampled by unjustified restrictions. There is too much arbitrariness in this world as it is.
It's enough already. It's time to restore freedom.
Shit. Some kind of glitch on the website. When I reply to a comment, it's not quoted.
//---
MetaDriver 2012.03.20 01:01 #
Enough already. It's time to set free.
The analogy seems to be a charming one. But there are still questions. ))
At the moment when an individual realizes that his settings are incomplete, what does he start doing? Suppose that the next optimization version of the settings is being tested (tested). The condition is triggered when the individual (or rather we) see that the relevance of these settings is low, that is, they are not suitable for us. In this case, this option is discarded (criterion-based elimination). The current pass process stops and we start testing another option. The run gets to the end only if criteria specified at the beginning of optimization converge. And everything happens differently with you (new for me, if I understood correctly). Or maybe not new, because maybe I don't understand what you mean. :) Unfortunately, I am one of those individuals who understand better when they are looking at a diagram. But I shall not ask you to do that, otherwise I might hear in reply: "You draw it yourself! ))) But I will risk it. Show me the schematic, or maybe MQ doesn't understand it either and if you have a schematic you have a better chance of being heard. )))
Shit. Some kind of glitch on the website. When I reply to a comment, it's not quoted.
//---
The analogy seems to be a charming one. But there are still questions. ))
At the moment when an individual realizes that his settings are incomplete, what does he start doing? Suppose that the next optimization version of the settings is being tested (tested). The condition is triggered when the individual (or rather we) see that the relevance of these settings is low, that is, they are not suitable for us. In this case, this option is discarded (criterion-based elimination). The current pass process stops and we start testing another option. The run gets to the end only if criteria specified at the beginning of optimization converge. And you, somehow everything happens differently (new for me, if I understood correctly). Or maybe not new, because maybe I don't understand what you mean. :) Unfortunately, I am one of those individuals who understand better when they are looking at a diagram. But I shall not ask you to do that, otherwise I might hear in reply: "You draw it yourself! ))) But I will risk it. Show me the schematic, or maybe MQ doesn't understand it either and if you have a schematic you have a better chance of being heard. )))
To understand the principle of recursion, you have to understand the principle of recursion.
MetaDriver 2012.03.20 02:21 #
To understand the principle of recursion, you have to understand the principle of recursion.
I know what recursion is. ))))
Recursion
Found the following brief information:
"SEPULKI is an important element of the Ardrite (see) civilization from the planet Enteropia (see). See SEPULCARIES".
I followed this advice and read:
"SEPULCARIES - Sepulation devices (see)".
I looked up "Sepulturation"; it said:
"SEPULKARIES are the occupation of the Ardrites (see) from the planet Enteropia (see). See SEPULLY".
Lem S. "The Star Diaries of Ion Pacific. Journey Fourteenth."
I know what recursion is. ))))
I just did not understand the principle you are suggesting to use during optimization. Ok, forget it. Maybe I'll figure it out one day when I'm more mature. ))) I'll take note....Oh,come on. I was just kidding around. I hope the banter had some useful, brain-expanding connotations. :)
In fact, people exaggerate the difficulty of writing optimizers. In fact, the scheme is simple and consists of two blocks
(1) parameter set generator (2) tester.
The tester for a certain indicator is not much harder to write than the second indicator. (And the decision-making block in any Expert Advisor can always be written as a single (even a complex) indicator.) Now there is the second block: the generator of sets of parameters - a very creative and not very difficult task. The main thing is to have some nerve and write such a thing once.
We don't give a shit about accuracy of profit calculation during optimization. We should only care about the correct order ratio between the calculated instances of the indicator parameters set. I.e. which of them is better/worse than the others. In order to sort it out in the right order in the course of optimism. That's the whole song.