Automated Trading Championship 2011 - Rules - page 3
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
I support dimeona's reasoning. I don't understand the developers' position on introducing any restrictions on the use of their development (MT5). The main purpose of the championship is to popularise the platform.
But seriously, try linking a demo account and a dislike of "pips". Doesn't it seem absurd to you?
As usual, there is nothing to say. If you think about it, it is not absurd.
1. Well, yes, not absurd, especially in the light of the concept of this championship and the goals pursued by the organisers.
We are still thinking about how it would look like in real accounts, but it's still there. The Championship is still being conducted on the demo accounts (in fact - correctly).
And it is naive to believe that someone would allow "blatant" pipsing in this championship, and it doesn't matter whether it is a demo, cent account ($100) or a real account.
2. Agree, that this championship is significant for traders and for all brokers, using MT (no matter kitchens, banks, stock exchanges or anyone else).
Therefore, the organizers have to take into account the interests of all parties, no matter traders or brokers.
In this case, the organizers even in these circumstances, more stringent conditions, in fact, this is correct.
In my opinion, the championship is more suitable to be considered as some sort of investment program for trust management, where the three leaders receive upon completion an account with the corresponding sums of deposits.
In this organizers (can be considered as MQ) are focused on some average client + put forward their own conditions.
And as you know the investor can impose any conditions without looking at any "benefits" (certainly nothing to back them up) which they are trying to impose.
If someone does not like the conditions they may not participate (for example, I do not consider it necessary to participate in the championships on MT4, but at the same time not demanding even if not absurd, but nothing to justify the changes in the rules).
5. I do not consider "pipsing" to be an evil, but I will not say that it is impossible to do without it. That said, I do not approve of MQ's "spirit" policy.
All of the conditions must be clearly defined in the rules, and everything that is not described in the rules must be agreed upon before the start of the championship.
All disputable moments not negotiated before the start of the championship must be interpreted in favour of the participant (his expert).
PS
I am sure that the rules should be the same as the requirements of an investor who gives certain investments in aggressive asset management. And the trading should be done in the accounts of some average broker (if you want an average MQ client).
Gentlemen, this is the fifth year of the Championship, the issues of pips have been discussed so often and extensively all these years, starting from 2006, that there is nothing to add.
Gentlemen, this is the fifth year of the Championship and the pips have been discussed so often during all these years, starting from 2006, that there is nothing left to add.
So maybe it is time to finally summarize it all and include it in the Rules, instead of referring to the forums for the last five years (some of which have also been deleted).
I don't think anyone could formulate the questions any clearer... What is there to add? Well, let's better delete the paragraph about 25% of profitable trades within spread limits, because next to "pipsqueak spirit" it sounds like "buttered"...
The question to the competent participants of the previous years' Championships is then:
- would an EA holding a position for at least 5 minutes (no maximum limit), aiming to profit within three spreads, be considered a "pipser"?
Gentlemen, this is the fifth year of the Championship, the issues of pips have been discussed so often and extensively since 2006 that there is nothing to add.
Since 2006, the community has matured. You put up a prize of 80k against a code and hope that potential participants won't go over and over
the terms and conditions, poking around in every comma and wording is naive.
Since 2006, the community has matured. To put up an 80k prize against a code and hope that potential entrants won't go over and over
the terms and conditions of the prize, picking at every comma and wording is naive.
I would even add - to read up and down the conditions of participation in its draw - and then how the balance curve will lead ...
The ghost walks on ATC, the ghost of black pips... and if we don't talk about him, he'll go away and eat up our grand prize... isn't that right, Renat?
Maybe we can somehow reclassify him as a real creature? Or is it to someone's advantage to keep such a "spirit" tethered?
Since 2006, the community has matured. Putting up a prize of 80k against a code and hoping that potential entrants won't go over and over
the terms and conditions, poking around in every comma and wording is naive.
Just for them there are 4 years of previous discussions of the issue of pips. All materials are publicly available.
In that time our position has never changed. Just knowing that for 80k many will go for violations, we reserve the right not to allow any participant to take part.
If we had not done a good preparatory work in ATC2010, then last year instead of the competition there would have been mayhem from the crowd of pips.
Couldn't we somehow make him a real creature? Or is it to someone's advantage to keep such a "spirit" tied down?
Please don't try to throw in your ridiculous/repeatable/provocative arguments against a long-standing decision.
Made a few approaches, played around with the statements, but it doesn't work. Leave it alone.
Please don't try to throw in your ridiculous/repeatable/provocative arguments against a long-standing decision.
Made a few approaches, played around with the statements, but it doesn't work. Give it up.
On this site, your request is equal to the law. If you manage to put aside your personal animosity, you may notice that I am not positioning myself as a scalper, and I am not defending the interests of scalpers, trying to haggle for some special conditions for myself. I'm just trying to prepare my Expert Advisor for the Championship and at the moment I still have the opportunity to make it conform with any rules, whether they are public or not, or completely abandon this or that trading strategy. I think the questions I asked in the first post are neither funny nor provocative, and they are being repeated just because those who can answer them don't do so for some inexplicable reason...
I want to remind you once again - I'm not an agent of the competition, not a meth-hater, I am an ordinary member of your site's community, which due to its intelligence can express its thoughts not only in code MQL, but also in literary Russian. And notice, I haven't thrown anything against your decisions, my request was to clarify