the true unprofitable face of the adviser - page 3

New comment
 
delyus:

conys,


I'm shocked, is it really possible? It can't be! He's making profit on the minutes! He trades somewhere in the real world? He seems to be a very rough setup and a Pipsman at the same time.



No, it's not a pip trader. I'm trading it in real time as well, and I don't know why it scares you so much about the drawdown :))
 

what principle, in general terms, is embodied here?

 
delyus:

conys,

I'm shocked, is it really possible? It can't be! He's making profit on the minutes! He trades somewhere in the real world? He seems to be a very rough setup and a Pipsman at the same time.

Just because the test was done on 1M timeframe does not mean it works on it. A normal EA may work on any timeframe and use data from both higher and lower timeframes (and also from other symbols, but then it cannot be tested). So it does not matter where to stick it and where to test it, the results should be approximately the same.
 
Valmars
The fact that the test was conducted on 1M timeframe does not mean that it works on it. A normal EA can work on any timeframe and use data from both higher and lower timeframes (and also from other symbols, but then it cannot be tested). So it does not matter where to stick it and where to test it, the results should be about the same.
So, if the Expert Advisor that trades on daily levels in the Strategy Tester is put on minits, it is closer to real time and therefore unprofitable, isn't it?
 
delyus:
Valmars
Just because the test was done on 1M timeframe does not mean that it works on it. A normal EA may work on any timeframe and use data from both higher and lower timeframes (and also from other symbols, but then it cannot be tested). So it does not matter where to stick it and where to test it, the results should be about the same.
So, if the Expert Advisor that trades with daily levels in the Strategy Tester is put on minute positions, then it is closer to real time and therefore loss-making?

We do not know how well the tester correctly models prices inside minutiae on different timeframes. This is still a matter of analysis (see other threads). When everything is simulated correctly, the differences should not occur, though a complete coincidence can hardly be expected. Although I've always been in favor of using in the History Centre not the simulated tick history, but the real, or at least modeled, but tested for correctness and unambiguous in all passes on all timeframes.
 
Opinions have already been repeatedly expressed here as to why it is physically impossible for there to be a councillor who will continually chop cabbage on a period of history of 7 years.


maybe!

and there is!

You just have to believe that nothing is random in this world...

 
the most logical tsD advisor, which lets profits flow, cuts off losses, works in line with the trend and so on, balances out at zero for 7 years - that's the result. of course, it can be optimised for certain periods, but... but... that's not it.
 
delyus:
the most logical tsD advisor, which lets profits flow, cuts off losses, works in line with the trend and so on, balances out at zero for 7 years - that's the result. of course, it can be optimised for some periods, but... but... that's not it.

an adviser, about 70%-120% per year, BUY?
 
delyus:
the most logical tsD advisor, which lets profits flow, cuts off losses, works in line with the trend and so on, balances out at zero for 7 years - that's the result. of course, it can be optimised for certain periods, but... that's not the same.
If all the others are wildly unprofitable, then you're lucky: change OP_BUY to OP_SELL in several places, as well as stops to limits, and you'll be fabulously rich =)
 

claud, i give you 20% of the year's profits, i swear by all the saints i will transfer and not distribute. but if there is a loss, i won't scold))

i've tried it, it's also down, but with triple speed))

123456789
New comment
Reason: