The work of robots on the real. Why people are disappointed
That I am disappointed is a fact.
I have some observations and thoughts on the subject, and some conclusions - but I'll post mine later, for now I'd like to hear what anyone thinks on the subject.
Everything is working wonderfully.
Not a fact. Where's the reasoning: research or survey references?
I've been doing research for a long time, first of all, on myself (topic: why my robot looks great in the tester and not in real life) and on my clients.
They have exactly the same question: Why is it beautiful in the test and not so good in the real world?
They have exactly the same question: Why is it beautiful in the test and not so good in the real world?
Oh, that's what you mean! So it's because people have no idea what a tester is, for what purpose or how to use it.
There are objective reasons: price movement in the tester (even tickwise) and in the real market are two big differences.
The brokerage company is not a hen, it does not do its own harm. We will not wait for that - more before, less now, but we will not wait for that at all.
The inevitable evil that must be taken into account.
But it's not so much and not only that. The "DC tax" is not that big now.
There are a lot of complaints and spits on the Internet, so it doesn't make sense to collect and publish the links. A poll can be done here. I'll take a look now and if editing allows it, I'll do it.
I have been doing research for a long time on myself (topic: why my robot looks great in the tester, but not in real life) and on my clients.
They have exactly the same question: Why is my robot beautiful in the test and not so good in real life?
Large discrepancies on the real and the tester are usually observed for pips. Could that be the problem?
I totally agree. If the robot is written for 1 hour and above, the difference is negligible, especially if the algorithm works only once an hour ( opening prices only). But if it's below an hour, then sometimes it's a total loss on the real.
I totally agree. If the robot is written for 1 hour and above, the difference is negligible, especially if the algorithm works only once an hour ( opening prices only). But if it's below an hour, then sometimes it's a total loss on the real.
And once a year is a real treat!
Seriously, I have 2 signals set up, the MTS is on in 1 second increments, you can watch the results.
Large discrepancies on the real and the tester are usually observed for pips. Could this be the problem?
The second reason that aggravates the first one is that such bots, as a rule, work with short stops. The law of the falling sandwich is working here - the TP will not be reached by a couple of pips,
but the stop triggers instantly. I think that stupidly set stops, no matter what distance they are set at, work exclusively for brokerage companies.
I did not use them in my trading robots long ago. I do feed moose, of course. But in a dosed manner and only with a part of cabbage that they helped to prepare on the profit trail.
This method is very well worth it.
But the main problem of dissatisfaction with robots, in my opinion, is not that.
Why is everything beautiful in the test? First of all, because the trader has no opportunity to change anything with his naughty hands.
In real trading, everything is just the opposite. And rare trader can stop the itching on their fingertips.
Traders lack patience. It's hard to watch for a day, two or three days when this stupid bot doesn't open anything, even though there's so much traffic.
And the result of manual intervention, as a rule, is blamed on the robot. And they even believe it themselves.
I've heard more complaints than I can count. But all of them were withdrawn instantly, as soon as I got access to my investment password.
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
I have some observations and thoughts on the subject, and some conclusions - but I'll post mine later, for now I'd like to hear what people think on the subject.