Championship. Rules. clause III.6.6 is unclear :-) - page 6
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
I.e., in fact, we analyze profit in pips. We eliminate losing trades (the fight was started exactly because of profit ones!) and obtain another criterion, which I suggested earlier: expectation of a profit trade must be higher than spread. Of course, if we calculate it in points.
How much larger is the spread?
According to the Championship Rules (III.6.4):
According to the Championship Rules (III.6.4):
I also do not like the 25% rule of calculating profit trades within the spread, because it makes me artificially get rid of unwanted trades and is a very weak tool to separate flies from cutlets, "scribes" from correct trading strategies. The intuitively acceptable "put spread+1" argument clearly indicates the artificiality of the rule and does not call for a change in strategy, only, indeed, to make a slight movement of the hand, as if one were chasing away flies.
To my taste, an EA that trades with a spread+1 profit is no different from an EA that trades with a profit equal only to the spread. I would support the spirit of competing the right strategies with a stronger watershed. The philosophy of this watershed is that a trading strategy should profit from the properties of the market, not the properties of the broker. Market spread movements are all from the broker; these movements differ from broker to broker, as each broker has its own "kitchen" in a good sense of the word. The exploitation of these market movements is identical to the exploitation of broker imperfections. Let's leave aside the question of whether this can and should be done. But I would like to suggest that such exploitation cannot be called trading in the market at all. Considering that the market potential is incommensurably higher than that of a broker, one would hope that one could take incommensurably more from the market than from a broker. How much can you take from a broker? About as much as a broker takes on the spread from a trader. So, in order to find out who the trader took profit from, you need to compare the profit of the broker and the trader. If they are comparable, it means that there is a broker-trader fight, if trader's profit is incomparable with broker's one, this profit is obviously from the market. Therefore I propose to compare the broker's spread profit against the trader's total profit as a criterion of correctness but not of the strategy's pipsiness. If trader's profit is much larger than broker's one, then this is a correct strategy taking profit from the market and not from the broker.
The trader's profit should be an order of magnitude greater than the losses on the spread.
Vita, that's right, of course. If you're talking about trader's profit, not gross profit, then "by an order of magnitude" is an extremely difficult task. Even the winner of Ch-07 had an m.o.p. of trades equal to about 10 pips (a third of an m.o.p. of a profitable trade). And this is with the ratio of profitable trades to losses equal to about 2, and with the approximate equality of the average profit and loss trades.
Here and now, I am only trying to suggest a criterion of distinguishing between scalping and non-scalping which would help sort out not too many people but be more or less natural. The main purpose of the Championship is not to determine the best of the best, but to popularize automated trading. It is only natural that the majority will be at a disadvantage. So it's OK.
With this clause, the Organizers want to eliminate the outright pipsers such as wonderboy-last (written by winwin2007) to avoid the unnecessary excitement when changing the conditions "on the fly". Remember what a fuss there was when MQ's moved the stoplevels and changed the filters on EURGBP a week after the start of Ch-07?
A trader's profit should be an order of magnitude greater than the loss on the spread.
Vita, all correct, of course. If you're talking about trader's profit, not gross profit, then "by an order of magnitude" is an extremely difficult task.
I will give you my five cents, but not as a lecturer/fascist, but as a seeker. I cannot disagree with Vitaly, and I kind of disagree with Alexey that "one order of magnitude" is a very difficult task. Here's the tester report and my reasoning, correct me if I'm wrong.
Basic characteristics
At a point value, again average, of $1 (0.1 standard lot) spread losses of $1740. Net profit 15181,71 dollars, i.e. taki profit is almost an order of magnitude bigger than spread losses... Did I make a mistake somewhere?
Vita, that's right, of course. If you're talking about trader's profit, not gross profit, then "by an order of magnitude" is an extremely difficult task. Even the winner of Ch-07 had an m.o.p. of trades equal to about 10 pips (a third of an m.o.p. of a profitable trade). And this is with the ratio of profitable trades to losses equal to about 2, and with the approximate equality of the average profit and loss trades.
Here and now, I am only trying to suggest a criterion of distinguishing between scalping and non-scalping which would help sort out not too many people but be more or less natural. The main purpose of the Championship is not to determine the best of the best, but to popularize automated trading. It is only natural that the majority will be at a disadvantage. So it's OK.
With this clause, the Organizers want to eliminate the outright pipsers such as wonderboy-last (written by winwin2007) to avoid the unnecessary excitement when changing the conditions "on the fly". Remember what a fuss there was when MQs spread the stops and changed the filters on EURGBP a week after the start of Ch-07?
We're only talking about profitable trades. Do losing trades come in "pips"?
I don't recall much success with other pipsers except winwin2007. Therefore, I think other Pips traders have not done much for the cause of popularization. Assuming that scandals and proceedings against the pipsmen are not the purpose of MQ, the risk of them under a weak delimitation condition will be much greater than under a strong one. Then, let's say winwin2008 spread+1, will continue the work of its predecessor and succeed in that field. Then winwin2008 spread+1 will have to be recognized as a deserved winner, not as an outright pipsqueak like winwin2007, but as a respected strategy that is allowed to popularize autotrading. Wouldn't there be a riot if an EA with much bigger balance was disqualified because its 26% of trades are equal to the spread? The same applies to your suggestion that expectation of a profit trade must be higher than the spread. It is sufficient to openly pips all the time and make one profitable deal with spread+1 to make the mathematical expectation be considered as reasonable.
And I doubt that a strong condition would weed out too many people - that's for one thing. Secondly, it doesn't look like MQs are much afraid of it. I see that a strong condition would make people forget about spread+1 strategies and save everyone from borderline conflicts. Actually, I'm curious why MQs have drawn the border so close to an area that annoys them a lot. Apparently confident that earning the spread+1 is no different from earning the 10*spread+1 already.
25885.43
We have 348 trades, x on the average spread - 5 (multi-currency, spreads are different), we receive 1740 points of spread paid to the broker.
If we have an average point value, again, of $1 (0.1 standard lot) we would have spread losses of $1740. Net profit 15181,71 dollars, i.e. almost one order of magnitude more losses on spread. Did I make a mistake somewhere?
You got it wrong.
We are only talking about profitable trades. Are there any losing trades that are "pipsqueak"?
There are 50 profitable trades, which translates to $250 in spread losses.
so not by nearly an order of magnitude, but by orders of magnitude.
We only evaluate profitable trades. So it's even better. :)
so it's not almost an order of magnitude, it's an order of magnitude...
>> Exactly.