Are there any trading robots in our galaxy that make money instead of losing??????? - page 2

 
Vitalii Ananev:

I'm not going to advise you on any advisers, sorry for the bullshit. What I meant was that maybe you are not following money management, setting high risks with a small deposit. Or you are using the wrong settings.

I don't know what it is but i don't know if i've got a real trading robot in a tester but i've got a negative one.
 
Yury Reshetov:

They are there, you just have to know how to use them. After all, your question, if you exaggerate it, sounds something like this:

Are there any Formula 1 cars that you can drive and not get into accidents? I've bought a few and they all crash quicker than walking.

 
Yury Reshetov:

They are there, you just have to know how to use them. After all, your question, if you exaggerate it, sounds something like this:

Are there any Formula 1 cars that you can drive and not have an accident in? I've recently bought a few racing cars, and on all of them I crashed faster than I did on foot.

In general, from all the answers so far one conclusion is that there is a super robot, but all are silent about it and the name of this robot is market maker
 
mgfx13:
I don't know what it is but the fact is that in the tester the robot is working in the + side and in real time it is trading in the negative side that is the problem, before buying in real time on the demo you cannot run out only the tester.

Some EAs are sensitive to spread size, especially scalping EAs. When testing in the tester, set the spread two to three times the average spread of the pair under test. Parameters should not be optimized on the entire available history, but on some part of time out of the middle of the history, for about 2-3 years. Then, with these optimized parameters, run the test over the entire history. If it does not fail, it means that there is no adjustment.

No gems exist, but according to my criteria an EA is considered workable if after the optimization of parameters (by the principle I described above) it continues to work without the need in reoptimization.

 
mgfx13:
The question is whether there are any EAs that make money on a real account and not just in the strategy tester.
Try to optimise the standard EAs that come with the terminal.
 
Vitalii Ananev:


In general, there is no such thing as a grail, but according to my criteria, an EA is considered to be workable if it continues to work without the need for re-optimization after the optimization of parameters (on the principle as I described above).

So it is a grail if there is no need to re-optimize it. Therefore, those who systematically look at the results of real trading and use them to decide whether overoptimization is needed, do not ask silly questions about the Galaxy a long time ago.

The fools believe that they have just put the EA and start counting the money. It is the same as buying a car and it will drive you wherever you want, by God's will. In reality, the car needs to be tuned all the time: the ignition starts malfunctioning, the valves bang, the wheels get unbalanced, etc., etc. Advisors also require systematic over-optimisation.

 

Moreover, different EAs work differently in different markets. Trend-following EAs will make you money on trends, but lose money on flat. Flat - they will earn you on a flat, but the directional movement leads to drawdown. However, this is not an excuse not to use them.

I already wrote somewhere - gold in granite rock can be extracted with pickaxe, but pickaxe is useless for gold-bearing sand. At the same time, a washing bath is good for sand, which is useless for granite. However, people convinced of the fact that one cannot get gold from sand with a pickaxe and granite with a basin, proclaims that "gold is best mined with hands". Nuh-uh...

 
No, it's about random and unpredictable factors, initial conditions when setting up an EA and changes in volatility, which is why some robots fail immediately and some later
 
Vitalii Ananev:

Some EAs are sensitive to spread size, especially scalping EAs. When testing in the tester, set the spread two to three times the average spread of the pair under test. Parameters should not be optimized on the entire available history, but on some part of time out of the middle of the history, for about 2-3 years. Then, with these optimized parameters, run the test over the entire history. If it does not fail, it means that there is no adjustment.

No gems exist, but according to my criteria an EA is considered workable if after the optimization of parameters (by the principle I described above) it continues to work without the need in reoptimization.

For more info about the profitability of the forex robot, please contact your broker, I have tested it on MT4 and I've found a different broker, I've got a real spread from 0.7 to 2.0 and the difference is 100 times less, when they say it is not possible to work with the forex robot.
 
Tapochun:
Try optimising the standard EAs that come with the terminal.
I will try it thanks
Reason: