Gentlemen, I'm beginning to lose faith in EAs, or myself :(. Wrote a lot of variants. Mostly on the pound on watches. I use muwings, stochastics and hourly analysis. I use annual history for writing and optimization. Expert Advisor enters the market an average of 2 times in 3 days. Everything is cool on tests. But!!! ... in real life in the next 2 weeks we lose money... And all is not like that :(. Talk about adjusted parameters for a one year period, and the market is constantly and rapidly changing...? yeah somehow I don't believe it. The sample is large - under 160-200 market exits, and 2 weeks is not a time frame for big changes. Can one adjust parameters to such a number of trades and can the market change so quickly? Tell me how to do it. If something works, brag about it and give me faith. I have given up hope.
- A quick and free library for MT4, much to the delight of neuralnetworkers
- [WARNING CLOSED!] Any newbie question, so as not to clutter up the forum. Professionals, don't go by. Can't go anywhere without you.
- Questions from Beginners MQL5 MT5 MetaTrader 5
sashken:
Why don't you brag? :) And post the EA code?
Or at least tester reports. Maybe the picture will clear up:)
Why don't you brag? :) And post the EA code?
Or at least tester reports. Maybe the picture will clear up:)
Strategy Tester Report
chas_GBP_TP_TSnorm_SLlowHigh
Symbol | GBPUSD (Great Britain Pound vs US Dollar) | ||||
Period | 1 Hour (H1) 2006.01.01 23:00 - 2007.03.21 00:00 (2006.01.01 - 2007.03.21) | ||||
Model | All ticks (based on all smallest available periods with fractal interpolation of each tick) | ||||
Parameters | porog=1; MAmor=2; MAtrend=24; risk=0.1; CandleBar=0.55; TP=120; TS=70; SL=54; TimeCH=10; VolP=1.5; t=0; porogSL=10; candle=11; candleEX=17; MAporog=17; DellOrd=23; | ||||
Bars in history | 8494 | Modelled ticks | 1576481 | Simulation quality | 57.67% |
Initial deposit | 1000.00 | ||||
Net profit | 3745.64 | Total profit | 7681.59 | Total loss | -3935.95 |
Profitability | 1.95 | Expected payoff | 25.14 | ||
Absolute drawdown | 0.00 | Maximum drawdown | 384.68 (12.31%) | Relative drawdown | 12.31% (384.68) |
Total trades | 149 | Short positions (% win) | 60 (65.00%) | Long positions (% win) | 89 (75.28%) |
Profitable trades (% of all) | 106 (71.14%) | Loss trades (% of all) | 43 (28.86%) | ||
Largest | profitable trade | 120.00 | losing deal | -263.31 | |
Average | profitable deal | 72.47 | losing transaction | -91.53 | |
Maximum number | continuous wins (profit) | 8 (547.11) | Continuous losses (loss) | 3 (-249.45) | |
Maximum | Continuous Profit (number of wins) | 635.18 (7) | Continuous loss (number of losses) | -263.31 (1) | |
Average | continuous winnings | 3 | Continuous loss | 1 |
solandr:
http://www.riskinvest.ru/library/articles/Bakeyev_Trading_system.pdf
'Suggestion to developers. Fighting the fitting of external EA parameters on historical data'
http://www.riskinvest.ru/library/articles/Bakeyev_Trading_system.pdf
'Suggestion to developers. Fighting the fitting of external EA parameters on historical data'
Thanks for the read. I'll have a look :)
A modelling quality of 57% would not be enough:)
90% is just right, that's probably what's causing all the discrepancies.
90% is just right, that's probably what's causing all the discrepancies.
sashken:
A modelling quality of 57% would not be enough:)
90% is just right, that's probably what's causing all the discrepancies.
A modelling quality of 57% would not be enough:)
90% is just right, that's probably what's causing all the discrepancies.
Well, that's as high as the tester gets. In principle, it's not about quality. This particular Expert Advisor has pending orders on extrema. We close by trailing bars or by orders. So, the quality does not have anything to do with it.
AndyGri:
Well, that's the maximum the tester gives. In principle, it's not the quality. In this particular EA, pending orders on extrema are working and closing according to trailing stops or orders. Thus, the quality has nothing to do with it.
sashken:
57% modelling quality would not be enough:)
90% is just right, that's probably what's causing all the discrepancies.
57% modelling quality would not be enough:)
90% is just right, that's probably what's causing all the discrepancies.
Well, that's the maximum the tester gives. In principle, it's not the quality. In this particular EA, pending orders on extrema are working and closing according to trailing stops or orders. Thus, the quality has nothing to do with it.
If you like:)
sashken:
Whatever:)
AndyGri:
Well at most what the tester gives you. Actually, it's not the quality. In this particular EA, pending orders on extrema are used while closing by trailing stops or by orders. So, the quality does not have anything to do with it.
sashken:
57% modelling quality would not be enough:)
90% is just right, that's probably what's causing all the discrepancies.
57% modelling quality would not be enough:)
90% is just right, that's probably what's causing all the discrepancies.
Well at most what the tester gives you. Actually, it's not the quality. In this particular EA, pending orders on extrema are used while closing by trailing stops or by orders. So, the quality does not have anything to do with it.
Whatever:)
So I don't know.... so i'm asking :))
Knock, ICQ: 1-850-250

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