Are there any trading robots in our galaxy that make money instead of losing??????? - page 44

New comment
 
Vladimir Zubov:
Darling, we've been sitting here for a long time, why should we measure ourselves? And if you have nothing better to do, or you're gonna do it...
Relax, man, it wasn't for you, it was for those who race you with the tester pictures. Don't take it so personally, it's not cast iron ))))
 
Vladimir Zubov:
There is no such thing as an advisor. Don't generalise, and there are different reasons for selling. And it's not customary to talk about credit here at all.
I agree.
 
Nikolay Krupenich:

not bad, but it's been 8 years. and "we can't predict" the future. The only thing I would point out is that as your volume grows, so do your kickbacks. This may go beyond the marginal requirements. And most importantly, the 8 year history test makes little sense. The market has changed a lot during this time. Look at the form of the quotes chart on higher TFs. The past 2 years are very different from the previous and probably next ones. In my opinion a forward and back test is needed in the near future.

The advantage of my EA (for me of course) is that I know exactly how it works and its weaknesses. But it is definitely not afraid of trend and flat, not afraid of news. It hides the algorithm from the broker. Almost a grail. But among many combinations of settings there are variants of losing. For example, when testing a parameter that may take values from 0 to 1 in increments of 0.05 there are a couple of variants that results in a margin call. You may get into trouble, because we do not know what variant will be in the future. There are two ways to fight it, for example, to divide the deposit into 20 accounts. But here the problem is the size of the pocket. My pocket is big ... :=). The second option is to set the drawdown protection. In principle, the Expert Advisor has the algorithm for withdrawing from a drawdown that leads the deposit to the previous level, the only thing is that it loses time for this. There is still plenty of work on testing and correcting algorithms of the third level, so the Forbes list is not threatening yet :=).

But do you need an answer to the galactic question? I was chatting with the coolest expert in EA creation. He said that any EA lives for a few months. Then the algorithm becomes obsolete. So, if someone is selling their EA, it's because its lifetime is coming to an end. Otherwise, why bother begging for pennies when you can make millions? Take a loan from the bank and blow it sky high.

Not really, if an owl goes the long haul without flushing out, it's more likely to continue to be successful than say you do the last 1 - 2 years of tuning in. We take real bots into account, not tester grails.
 
Vitalie Postolache:

You're all trying to measure each other's testers, it's like a kindergarten)))

At least one would draw a real or demo report.

At least such a scary one (ran the code on the fly, changed settings, in general, made fun of the full):

Why there is no report from the real - the answer is in the text. Not yet. I am not a player. Hoping on luck is not my profile. There are no miracles in the forex market. You can play cool and catch luck, but not all the time. I once watched a contest winner report on a demo account. He entered with order size 6.4. There were two hundred contestants and he won by himself.
 
Mikhail Gorenberg:
Not really, if an owl goes a long distance without losing, it is more likely to continue to be successful than say you do a tune-up in the last 1 - 2 years. We take into account real bots, not tester bots.
I agree with you, if there is a long term trend, a tester on the real will not be able to stop it
 
When you see the story as in the tester, it's easier to pick up an advisor...
 
Nikolay Krupenich:

not bad, but it's been 8 years. and "we can't predict" the future. The only thing I would point out is that as your volume grows, so do your kickbacks. This may go beyond the marginal requirements. And most importantly, the 8 year history test makes little sense. The market has changed a lot during this time. Look at the form of the quotes chart on higher TFs. The past 2 years are very different from the previous and probably next ones. In my opinion a forward and back test is needed in the near future.

The advantage of my EA (for me of course) is that I know exactly how it works and its weaknesses. But it is definitely not afraid of trend and flat, not afraid of news. It hides the algorithm from the broker. Almost a grail. But among many combinations of settings there are variants of losing. For example, when testing a parameter which can take values from 0 to 1 in increments of 0.05 there are a couple of variants that results in a margin call. You may get into trouble, because we do not know what variant will be in the future. There are two ways to fight it, for example, to divide the deposit into 20 accounts. But here the problem is the size of the pocket. My pocket is big ... :=). The second option is to set the drawdown protection. In principle, the Expert Advisor has the algorithm for withdrawing from a drawdown that leads the deposit to the previous level, the only thing is that it loses time for this. There is still plenty of work on testing and correcting algorithms of the third level, so the Forbes list is not threatening yet :=).

But do you need an answer to the galactic question? I was chatting with the coolest expert in EA creation. He said that any EA lives for a few months. Then the algorithm becomes obsolete. So, if someone is selling their EA, it's because its lifetime is coming to an end. Otherwise, why bother begging for pennies when you can make millions? Take a loan from the bank and blow it sky high.

I wonder if we can ask him a few questions.

By the way

 
trader781:

I wonder if I could ask him a few questions.

By the way

Ask who? Me?

 
I think such robots only exist in those who have written and tested them. Every owl can be profitable if you understand how it trades, even a simple martin can give a steady plus if it is periodically switched off on the fundamentals.
 
Nikolay Krupenich:
Not. To that development specialist.
1...3738394041424344454647
New comment
Reason: