Market patterns - page 22
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
Greetings ladies and gentlemen!
A quick wit puzzle on the topic of this discussion. I decided not to create a separate topic for the sake of it. The task seems to be simple, but maybe it only seems that way.
So! We have the "Grail of Tests", a "black box" without any a priori information about TS.
It feeds a lot of rows, but can do with just one, giving very impressive results.How to check transparently and reliably for peeping, or possible other tricks?
This applies to both mt5 and mql, as well as any platform-dependent or standalone black-boxes capable of such. The first thing that came to mind was to run it on a whole row, and then cut the row in places where there were particularly good trades in hindsight, and then feed it back in pieces and see if it affects the fact that there are orders. If it does, it means it's peeking. Well, just in case there's no need to turn it off yet))).
The procedure of remote testing is of special interest when someone agrees to analyze rows on his machine and display the result, but refuses to give in any form, even the test version in his hands. Give can be anything, including and synthetic series, tools, etc..
Thank you for your attention.
Checking for sneak peeks, reliable, expensive :)
Unfortunately, not even a compiled version is provided to me, let alone the code. I don't know if it's even mql. But it doesn't matter, the point is that the author can only remotely test and give results of this algorithm.
This is the second time I've encountered such problems when it's hard to understand what's going on in a black box (totally black). Thought it might be of interest to others.
The easiest and yet most reliable option is to give a random walkabout as a test tool. If the EA shows a steady positive result on it, it is definitely either a peep into the future or a retraining of the network.
That's the thing about SB, it gives similar equity to SB. And on a whole bunch of instruments downloaded from various sources, a very immodest profit.
The author of this algorithm was not known to cheat. But the distribution of trades is very suspicious as if there was a peeping.
If anybody is interested I can lay out the results obtained with different IBs and different SBs.
Who is not too lazy to give any BP for example chopped in ascending proportion (0.1,0.2, ...,0.9,1.0) or as otherwise cut, packed in archives with passwords that are issued consistently, or some other kind of blind experiment ... I already do not know what to come up))) That's why I asked, how anyone solves such surprises.
Test at opening prices if you don't have a brutal pipsarian. In general, read this(MT4), this and this to start with.
Thank you. Haven't read the article since 4.
How is the opening so different? I just take a number of OHLC, and throw it on Skype dude, and he gives me equity. And OHLC threw both separately each and SB, but it's exactly FI that recognises or when there's a correlation.
I've just fooled myself like that many times before, but that was my code. And now third-party Graal logic, second-to-last.
Who knows, maybe it will be possible to learn something by looking at different manifestations of this logic in different rows. I will either falsify or learn something.
But it doesn't matter, the point is that the author can only remotely test and give the results of this algorithm.
Then there are no options. No way to check.
If anyone is interested, I can post the results, which were obtained from different FI, including different SBs.
If the SB plus, you can safely forget about the author and TC.
If it's on SB plus, you can safely forget about the afftor and TC.
That's the thing about SB, it gives a similar equity to SB. But on the whole pile of instruments downloaded from different sources, a very immodest profit.
And the SBs are derived from different noises, with different distribution function.
It really is just a puzzle-object, rather than some vital worldly problem.
I think everyone has to face such a problem and try to falsify or check such black boxes from a distance. But how?
And post lots of pictures. I'm intrigued.
Better in a new thread -- it would be easier to tear down if anything happens :)
....
Thank you. I haven't read the article from the 4.
How is the opening so different? I just take a series of OHLC, and throw it to the dude on Skype, and he throws me an equi. And OHLC threw both separately each and SB, but it's exactly FI that recognises or when there's a correlation.
I just fooled myself like that many times before, but that was my code. And now third-party Graal logic, second-to-last.
Who knows, maybe it will be possible to learn something by looking at different manifestations of this logic in different rows. I will either falsify it or learn something.
If in doubt, I strongly suggest asking for the investor's password from his real account, which has at least 500 trades (if pipsarian - 5000). See what's real and what the risks are.
If that's not there, you shouldn't even bother with these "black boxes".
I can offer a number to check. To be sure, you can also chop it up and lock it with a lag.
The main problem in this situation that is enough to look one step ahead to create a grail, myself so many times cheated, so the cut series if only the cut points do not coincide with orders, may not show the fake.
I don't know how to do it, but I'll try to use some other approach, that's why I don't know how to do it.
As a whole, we can say that if we cut off the moment where there is an increase in equity and pass the TS through it and nothing changes, it will be OK. But how can we make a cut without running the whole cut first? But all the same, the probability of seeing magic on a specially prepared cut, with a different number of interconnections, is high. If the result is ambiguous, then there is a suspicion of genuine graality. But no one usually sells such systems or tells you about their existence when they have been battle-tested. So I doubt that "someone" has honest motives to give you such data.
That's the thing about SB, it gives a similar equity to SB. And on a whole bunch of instruments downloaded from different sources, very immodest profits.