MTS = profit FALSE ||TRUE - page 5
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
It's not a question of strategies, it's the lack of strategies. What is the topic? The man asked if there are any MTS that actually work. The championship was pointed out to him as a positive example. I took the liberty of kicking this sacred cow. The championship proves nothing. The positive results available are within the margin of error. The overall result of all participants is worse than would be the result of a crowd of monkeys trading at random.
The authors of the Championship want to popularize automated trading, MQL4, METAQUOTES and improve the code culture and show that MTS can bring profit.
Of course, it has certain goals, and they are not limited to showing profitable strategies!
but nevertheless
This is a positive example in the sense that you MAY write a strategy that can earn money.
---
as for the results of the generally accepted statistic that 90 - 95% are losers!
in the 2007 championship 91 MTC out of 603 came to the finish line with a balance of more than 10k
that's 15% which is much higher than the 5% generally accepted handicap.
what are we talking about?
---
the point is that autotrading is more sensible than WORKING, by hand! - it's read by hand
it's hard to argue about monkeys! because there are no statistics
if a monkey can do 1000% work in three months :-) i would not mind to have one at home :-) i will provide him bananas
90 championship MTS has worked in the plus 100 to 120,000 USD this one time
90 out of 603! If trading was done completely randomly, the result should be on the order of 300 participants in the plus (slightly less because of the spread). That is, on average the programmers traded three times worse than the monkey crowd.
it's hard to argue about monkeys ! because there are no statistics !
If a monkey can do 1000% in three months :-) I would not mind to have one in my house :-) I will provide him with bananas.
It's a question of big numbers. A monkey is capable of making 1000% in three months. But you don't know which 600 will be so lucky. So you have to feed them all. Including all the ones that will lose their deposits. Total balance is a drain on the spread. Which is not so bad either - the participants of the championship were draining faster.
Oh... don't be silly... Any monkey is smarter than man. Man has a self-destruct program, monkeys do not.
All living things have a self-destruct program. "Born to die". There is nothing eternal in this world. The monkey does not smoke and does not drink alcohol, drugs, etc., because he has not figured out how to get it. Cats love valerian and consume it to excess - just give it to them. Any animal that has a nervous system is able to get high, and if an ape is given an opportunity to get high, it will kill itself much faster than any human, the dumbest one...
Nonsense about monkeys and computers. A monkey can reach a banana with a stick and can learn a few things in a circus...
Do not look for a monkey that will trade for you (this is not a reference to KimIV-U, but to all readers).
Every living thing has a programme for self-destruction. "Born to die". There is nothing eternal in this world. A monkey doesn't smoke or poison itself with alcohol, drugs, etc., because it hasn't figured out how to get it. Cats love valerian and consume it to excess - just give it to them. Any animal that has a nervous system is able to get high, and if an ape is given an opportunity to get high, it will kill itself much faster than any human, the dumbest one...
Monkeys and computers are nonsense, a monkey can reach for a banana with a stick and can be taught a few things in a circus...
Do not look for a monkey who will trade for you (this is not a reference to KimIV-u, but to all readers).
:-))))) I'm looking for ... ready to feed him, take him to the best resorts, order him exclusive bananas.
---
don't take it so linearly about the "monkeys"! it's a little different, timbo cited as an example of let's say some randomness
It's a matter of big numbers. A monkey is capable of trading 1000% in three months. But you don't know which one of the 600 will be so lucky. So you have to feed them all. Including all the ones that will lose their deposits. Total balance is a drain on the spread. Which isn't so bad either - the contestants were losing faster.
Well, to create something, you have to invest first.
to make something there is an initial cost
"We have the capital, we take 603 monkeys! We start at the start one comes in with 1000%, we select the best monkeys
Look at this - pick the best ones.
https://championship.mql5.com/2012/en
The rest go back to the woods - go on.
I mean, it's the usual selection process.
---
Once they've been selected, we keep selecting.
http://www.viac.ru/cd/23&list=open&acc=2102 i like it! it's a real thing, not a demo.
----
So we have some stability! Right?
That means the championship results are in.
http://www.viac.ru/cd/23&list=open&acc=2102 I like it! It's real, not demo.
----
So we have some stability! Right?
>> so there's a championship result after all.
Wrong. Although if you put the emphasis on "some", it might be right. On the one hand, 300% p.a. is great. On the other hand, on the balance sheet chart we have a long flat, then a rise, a long flat again, another rise period, then a long flat again. It looks like it's just lucky (by accident?) to hit a trend a couple of times.
I.e. we have 0,1,0,1,0. How many monkeys would it take for me to recreate the same pattern on the balance chart? Only 2^5=32. The main thing is for them to open their trades only one per quarter. And one of the monkeys will do much better - 1,1,1,1,1,1.
Here's if Batter's EA won the second championship as well, then we could talk about some stability. "Once a fluke, twice a trend, three times a pattern".
Where are the actual scores of the other championship leaders? I.e. could it be that Batter is just a very random fluke, an exception that only confirms the rule? And then the results of the Championship is no indication at all.
There is a suggestion to the organisers - as an exception, on the basis of former merits, perhaps out of competition, to allow last year's winners to display two EAs each: one an old one to look at again, and a new one, which they made for the new championship.
Wrong. Although if you put the emphasis on "some", it might be right. On the one hand, 300% p.a. is great. On the other hand, on the balance sheet chart we have a long flat, then a rise, a long flat again, another rise period, then a long flat again. It looks like it's just lucky(by accident?) to hit a trend a couple of times.
I.e. we have 0,1,0,1,0. How many monkeys would it take for me to recreate the same pattern on the balance chart? Only 2^5=32. The main thing is for them to open their trades only one per quarter. And one of the monkeys will do much better - 1,1,1,1,1,1.
Here's if Batter's EA won the second championship as well, then we could talk about some stability. "Once a fluke, twice a trend, three times a pattern".
Where are the actual scores of the other championship leaders? I.e. could it be that Batter is just a very random fluke, an exception that only confirms the rule? And then the results of the Championship is no indication at all.
There is a suggestion to the organizers - as an exception, on the basis of former merits, perhaps out of competition, to allow last year's winners to displaytwo EAs: one old, to look at it again, and a new one, which they made for the new championship.
i think trends are emerging - accidentally or not accidentally - but they are emerging
it is obvious that the network ! BETTER is trained to buy - well, the naked eye can see it
it is also obvious that it does not lose a lot on a fall and on the flat (I mean the relative falls)
And in this case it is enough to have a couple of buy trends of 2-3 months a year - which exactly happened from 01.10.2007 - till 25.12.2008
there was an obvious buy trend ref. https://www. mql5.com/ru/users/YuraZ
the second and third picture clearly shows a buy trend W1 graph with a GAP trend filter
and it picked a profit out of this trend quite well working on the very highs
---
IF from 01 10 2008 - 01 12 2008 - there is a buy trend - I think it will win again - at least it will be in the 5-10 - and this is also the stability of the bytrend
Unless, of course, we get a surprise ! or there is a clear downtrend within 3 months
---
interesting idea - i guess it will not be supported - because the organisers have other goals
Yes, interesting idea - I guess it will not be supported - because the organisers have other aims
I would not like to discuss any particular EA here, as it is difficult to judge if it is random or not.
I'm talking about the championship in general, which has convincingly proved that automated trading is technically possible and financially senseless for traders. The combined efforts of the mass of traders were aimed at losing money, their results were worse than if they had not done any analysis at all and opened strictly as chance. A handful of profitable EAs are just a game of statistics, they were bound to show up in a sample of 600 people, but it's not at all certain that they are actually trading ideas.
This is a demonstration of the real situation with automated trading that we have just had a chance to run the same Expert Advisors once again. But perhaps the organizers have other goals.
From the other side, the Championship has shown that automated trading is profitable for brokerage companies. The main advantage of the Championship is the demonstration of how profitable a DC can be. Perhaps that is the real purpose of the championship.
I wouldn't want to discuss any particular EA in this one, as it's quite difficult to assess whether it's random or not.
I was talking about the championship as a whole, which proved conclusively that automatic trading is technically possible and financially pointless for traders. The combined efforts of the mass of traders were aimed at losing money, their results were worse than if they had not done any analysis at all and opened strictly by chance. A handful of profitable EAs are just a game of statistics, they were bound to show up in a sample of 600 people, but it's not at all certain that they are actually trading ideas.
This is a demonstration of the real situation with automated trading that we have just had a chance to run the same Expert Advisors once again. But perhaps the organizers have other goals.
From the other side, the Championship has shown that automated trading is profitable for brokerage companies. The main advantage of the Championship is the demonstration of how profitable a DC can be. Perhaps this is the real purpose of the Championship.
If we are not talking about specific Expert Advisors
the autotrading rate is 15% which is better than arm trading according to the same statistics.
accidentally ? it may very well be accidental... ahead of 2008 there will also be a percentage of 10k+ traders with a balance above 10k and for some reason i dare to predict
with high probability more than 5% of the total - then it is an indicator in favor of autotrading
---
if we talk about stability of the best MTCs we do not have such statistics ...
---
if we are talking about a specific Expert Advisor or one of them, we have it --- but the condition is obvious, it's on the downtrend
---
in the trend market, automatons are in any case better than traders for they do not care if the equity has already exceeded the initial deposit
or the balance in 3 months is over 1000%.
a normal person would rather take the profit sooner
---
in the end, who said you have to place the advisor and blindly trust it - you may just use it as an assistant depending on the situation
the owner of the Expert Advisor - the same BETTER can slow it down on the DWON trend - knowing that it is set to buy
For example when the euro reaches 1.6 it would certainly make sense to slow it down, or switch to another one...
my point is that autotrading in general should not be approached as a gambling operation, but rather as a tool
---
about goals - i don't know - popularization of trading is profitable for brokerage companies and software producers
---