Poll: balance of the winner - page 2

New comment
 
Everything will still depend on the market over the three month interval. If we take the three months from March to May, the bullish movement on the Eura was over 900 pips. In this case, just one bullish position could already bring the lucky man $45,000. And during the three months from June to August there was a sideways market movement at all and there would be almost no profit...
 
Michel_S:
It will still depend on the market over the three-month interval. If we take the three months from March to May, the bullish movement on the Eura was over 900 pips. In this case, just one bullish position could already bring the lucky player $45,000. And during the three months from June to August, the market was moving sideways at all, and there would be almost no profit...
For a winner who is in the category of "random traders" it does not matter what kind of market it will be.
He (the winner) will just appear as a lucky one who hit the stream.

To illustrate, if you flip a coin 10 times, it is unlikely that someone
expect that the first 7 times in a row it will fall out one side, e.g. an eagle.
But if there were four hundred such series of tests - ten times each - among them there would certainly
there will be 1-3 series where the first 7 times the coin fell out one side.
 
A lot depends on the clarity of the championship rules. If it is written that the winner is determined by the maximum balance and you can open 3 orders of 5 lots each, then that will be the focus. If they say that the winner is determined by the maximum balance and can open 3 orders of 5 lots, then that will be the main focus. Otherwise it looks more like profanity. But in this case we have a 100-metre run - start where I want (even at the finish line) and use what I want. And where's the trade and benefit from hyper-aggressiveness if its creator doesn't use it. Only the game of wits and the possibilities of mathematics. A lot can be written on this subject.
 
On the other hand, if the organizers of the Championship started limiting the participants by the types of trading systems (random trading system or not), we would be even more indignant. After all, any trading system has the right to live, as long as the result is positive. There are lucky people who won a million dollars in the lottery once in their life. You can only be happy for them.
What we are interested in is to see the system in action that does not generate random profits but stable ones (even a small percentage value of the deposit). One of the greatest advantages of the Championship is its transparency. Therefore, it will become clear at the initial stage whether random trading systems are participating or not. I do not think there will be any interest in such systems among the Championship participants, even if they are more successful.
 
Michel_S:
On the other hand, if the Championship Organizers start restricting Participants by types of trading systems (random trading system or not), we will be even more indignant.

It is not difficult to filter the systems that trade "randomly" - we can limit the amount of open positions to 5-10% of the deposit. The work of
EA trading "through the system" will not be affected in any way, except for exotic cases, while it will filter out "random lucky traders" -
, as their maximum deposit growth rate will be 30-70%, which is comparable to the profitability of a very good EA in a couple of months.
The main thing here is the political will of the Championship Organizers.

We are interested to see the system in action, bringing profit not random, but stable (even a small percentage of the deposit). One of the greatest advantages of the Championship is its transparency. Therefore, it will become clear at the initial stage whether random trading systems are participating or not. I do not think such systems will be interesting for the participants of the Championship, even if they are more successful.

I wonder, how will it be possible to understand if the system is trading "randomly" or by a cunningly-sophisticated method?
Moreover, I think that most EAs who really trade "with the system", in order to have any chance
against "random lucky beggars" have to use more aggressive MM, hoping that they will be lucky.
 

Ronen - < 10 000
ForexFox - 12 000
 MAEstro - 32 000
 New - 47 500 (average)
Valmars - 51 246.45 =)
Better - > 100 000

 

A "random" system has no chance of beating a normal system by trading regularly for 2.5 months. The only chance for a "random" system is if it opens a 10-lot trade on December 21 and closes on the 25th. She might get lucky then.
Probably, the rule should have been added, so that the system would show positive balance if it was tested on one year's history. I assume that the organisers, without advertising it, have "complicated" the registration process for such systems.

 
ArtemRG:

A rule should probably have been added so that when the system is pre-tested on a year's history, the system will show a positive balance.

Then it would not be a Trading Systems Championship in online trading, but a Grail contest on history from the beginning of the year.
 

I don't think anyone will put up an EA that gives a loss on the backtest...


IMHO, there will be no random systems at all. All will be based on some kind of algorithm. Another thing is that some EAs will be lucky to get a result higher than their expectations, while others will achieve less. And the strongest will win!

 

There is another method.

A participant registers 6 experts (it seems it is possible to send more than one)

Each variant is aggressive and each variant is not aggressive.

buy ( with and without aggression 1 and without 2)
sells ( 3 4 )
trades both on sell and buy ( 5 6 )

;-) this is if we flip a coin

With all the variations you don't care which way the trend goes!


But I would prefer an Expert Advisor that does not take the first place, but comes in like a turtle with no losses
at least with 10 - 20%.

123456789...11
New comment
Reason: