expert testing of strategies - page 3
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
Good day to you all !
I seem to have already been sent - banned from the forum..., had to start a new email and registration for this last post.
For Figar0, Mathemat, Itso, Xeon - you guys are all experienced people, all with higher education, programmers and mathematicians. No one here has tried to impose a dubious favour on you and certainly no one has pretended to be a guru. I am an equal participant here on this forum, just like everyone else. Honestly, that last remark, "Fuck the guru ... ..." even made me sad. In general, I do not understand how anyone can achieve anything, not even trying to understand new ideas or tools offered for free for testing by other participants. For some reason I'm more than sure that if you are offered to buy a miracle program for 500 quid, you will think twice, but you don't want to just take part in testing.
All I suggested, this is a joint testing of BB, so participants themselves will decide whether it is useful to them or not.
All who are interested in continuation please write to fxforum dog inbox dot ru. (Hackers please do not break the box, it is absolutely empty).
KimIV and Parabellum, write.
I give up the forum, not interested, and banned me (I am logged in, but I can not send messages). Like a forum type of intellectuals, and peasant aggression is somehow too much here. It was a hunt to break spears.
No need to take offense, there is a wonderful saying of our ancestors - "Do not go to another's monastery with your own charter". I think it accurately reflects the nature of what is happening.
And if you really have something to offer, it's done here like this: 'Stochastic Resonance'.
I don't think anyone on this forum would want to take part in your tests without understanding them.
It seemed to me that the message had already happened - a subtle and intellectual one, with a stretch (from a respected forum member). I even wrote an initial reaction to the message, but quickly erased it, wanting to observe the outcome. And in general it's true, the first post of the thread looks very much like spam.
Yes of course KimIV did it masterfully :-)) But unfortunately the author of the thread didn't get it.
The man wanted to suggest something different, and he gets swept away?
Even if he did:
What can you get from the input data "fed" to your BB? Well the profit factor, well the expected payoff, well the drawdown, well the average of the testing interval, nothing that is not given out by MT tester,
There is a little different interpretation (which may look like this: the final vector, the angle of the x-axis upwards is divided into five sectors, which are the essence of the evaluation, but I could be wrong). Let the man have his say, I don't see any spam in his post.
Maybe the respected contributors just realise that they themselves don't have anything better to evaluate the stake?
The man wanted to suggest something different, and he gets swept away?
Even if he did:
What can you get from the input data "fed" to your BB? Well the profit factor, the expected payoff, the drawdown, the average over the testing interval, nothing that the MT tester does not show,
Inerpretation is slightly different here (which may look as follows: the total vector is drawn, the angle from the x-axis upwards is divided into five sectors, which is the essence of the evaluation, but I could be wrong). Let the man have his say, I don't see any spam in his post.
Maybe the respected contributors just realise that they themselves have nothing better to evaluate the stake?
P. S. This is not tied to this thread, but in general the forum.
If it' s a good idea, it's normally discussed. If you want to be sure, check out the thread on stochastic resonance. And if the topic is doomed in the first place, why bother with it?
And about spam, Parabellum, you're probably too hasty. The author's message clearly exceeds the share of enthusiasm about the capabilities of the so-called expert testing. And from other indications, it's clearly spam:
What do these emotions have to do with the case? At least let them post the product or give a link. There is nothing offered. They have long been immune to any black boxes.
If it' s a good idea, it's normally discussed. If you want to be sure, check out the thread on stochastic resonance. And if the topic is doomed in the first place, why bother with it?
I look through almost all threads, but I did not look through the thread about stochastic resonance, because I think it's another "neuronics" or "fuzzy logic". But I will not be like "I have not read, but I condemn".
I couldn't resist giving a few comments.
As for spam and as a response to Matemat - perhaps I did start on too pompous a note - I admit that I should not have written in such a mawkish tone and should not have pretended to be open, being closed. Moreover, when I wrote, I didn't know myself what I wanted to get out of it, I just offered to communicate. But that's no reason to call someone a newfangled guru and be willing to send him away.
Also I want to please angry people (and also responding to administrator Rosh's correct suggestion), by saying that I don't know mcl4 and don't even plan to study it. I use regular programming languages, because I'm used to it, and I think it's more reliable for some reasons. I'm just here because this forum has the largest number of independent thinkers, which is what I'm attracted to.
Personal response to Jurix - if by a growing grail (I don't know why you need such complicated words) you mean a vector of only positive trades, then I will say - of course the tester will show the highest result. But why is it bad? The proposed method of evaluation is not the only and final instance. I.e. a system evaluated with a good score will not necessarily work well in the future, BUT the interest of the tester is that a system with only 1 score will definitely not work in the future - and that's not a small thing to know, in my opinion. For example my last systems, which I thought were very good, showed a 1 :( and only a 2...
And now about the most interesting thing - the purpose of the branch - many may not agree with me, but I think public discussions are totally ineffective because those who only know the complex words and juggle terms anyway do not contribute to the solution of the problem - they write articles that seem to be the height of professionalism to newcomers, but in reality behind these articles little is worth it. The same few who can still really create something working or at least close to working, they will not bring their ideas to the general forum, because they know the price and they do not need it. If the idea is interesting, why publish it instead of developing it yourself? - That is my conviction.
That is why I believe that the most effective method is individual communication when two or at most three people are looking for an answer. And when everyone understands that in a small circle nobody benefits from "taking the real thing out of the house", there is a certain trust and it is possible to move forward.
Thus, this topic is an attempt to find people who have good experience and are able to think independently and constructively in order to establish personal communication with them. And one of the criteria to determine a person's ability is this tester.
So I hope I have resolved all the questions that have arisen.
Good day to you all !
I couldn't resist giving a few comments.
And now about the most interesting - the purpose of this thread - many may not agree with me, but I think public discussions are totally ineffective because those who only know complex words and juggle terms will still not contribute to the solution of the problem - they write articles that seem to be the height of professionalism to newcomers, but in reality behind these articles is not much. The same few who can still really create something working or at least close to working, they will not bring their ideas to the general forum, because they know the price and they do not need it. If the idea is interesting, why publish it instead of developing it yourself? - That is my conviction.
Therefore I believe that the most effective solution is individual communication when two or at most three people are looking for an answer. And when everyone understands that in a small circle nobody benefits from "taking the real thing out of the house", there is a certain trust and it is possible to move forward.
Thus, this topic is an attempt to find people who have good experience and are able to think independently and constructively in order to establish personal communication with them. And one of the criteria to determine a person's ability is this tester.
So hopefully resolved all the questions that have arisen.
1 - the strategy is likely to be curve-fit and has not shown itself to be sustainable;