"The 'perfect' trading system - page 44
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
Well, when the stop is 150-160pp and the take is 8-40pp, it's not over sitting but rather a shift of chances to close several positions in profit.
But so far I haven't seen any successful TP with such ratio, which works long and stably in profit.
I, personally, think of it as over-simulation. :)
There are system variants where this rule does not apply, as there are 4-5 closing options besides the stop. And I don't have a profit.
Stop in this case is force majeure.
For example, if dynamic closing didn't work here, there would be a stop.
It's just that in some systems a stop exceeding a profit is normal.
When the stop is technical and fixing is based on the signal, it is a completely different topic - no doubt.
The author represents an Expert Advisor that closes on profit and there is no loss fixing.
This is exactly what I wrote about.
When the stop is technical and the loss is fixed by the signal, it is a completely different topic - no doubt about it.
The author is presenting an EA that closes on profit, there is no loss taking.
This is exactly what he wrote about.
Well, then you are right. If we only take stops and profits as stat values, there will be no miracle.
Frankly speaking, it is impossible to hit all stops and profits correctly if they are static.
Dynamics is a different matter altogether. I agree.
I may be wrong, but I am not lying in any way, they are slightly different categories.
If I'm wrong, then obviously you don't put your best EAs on PAMM or how do you explain such a difference in results?
When the TP/SL ratio is from 1/20 to 1/4, it should be so.
Especially when you consider that the positions are opened by duplicate, and in fact we can assume that there are not 20, but 10 (note I'm not saying that you are lying about 20 trades).
But then one losing trade will kill the entire two-month profit, the second one will kill part of the deposit.
I have repeatedly pointed out to you that PAMM - this is another project and gave you a link to a full list of trading robots used in it.
But over and over again, you write about adaptive EA.
A systematic error:
1. Deliberate - you lie.
2. "to the doctor".
As you can see, in your case, I have not chosen the worst option :)
It will not kill the deposit - you can look it all in the tester - not all profitable trades, but there are also many unprofitable ones.
So I don't even know how to comment on your conclusions - maybe you are not lying? :)
We put adaptive trading robots on PAMM - they are much more reliable. Because we do not have to reboot them because of the "hairpin".
MT4 EAs have a minimum MT4 MT4 MT4 MT4 MT4 MT4 Failure Lifetime of at least 1 year, i.e. "plug and forget" - a significant saving in server administration costs. On the contrary, MT4 EAs need to be properly monitored to ensure that they do not "freak out".
When the stop is technical and the loss is fixed by the signal, it is a completely different topic - no doubt about it.
The author is presenting an EA that closes on profit, there is no loss taking.
This is exactly what I wrote about.
How come you cannot see it? :)
Adaptive Expert Advisor
See the very first test:
"Total trades 49 Short trades (% win) 17 (82.35%) Long trades (% win) 32 (90.63%)
Profitable trades (% of all) 43 (87.76%) Loss trades (% of all) 6 (12.24%)
Most profitable trade 823.00 Loss trade -2158.00
Average profitable trade 473.96 losing trade -1971.38
12% loss trades is it so little that "no loss taking is visible"? :)
Well then you are right. If only stops and profits are provided as static values, then there will be no miracle.
Frankly speaking, it is unrealistic to hit a stop or a profit if they are static.
Dynamics is a completely different issue. >> I agree.
So, it's clear:
1. You haven't looked at the code of the adaptive Expert Advisor.
2. You haven't studied the provided material.
3. You draw far-reaching conclusions.
Well, when the stop is 150-160pp and the take is 8-40pp, it's not over sitting but rather a shift of chances to close several positions in profit.
But so far I haven't seen any successful TS with such ratio working long and stably in profit.
Show me yours!
And show me yours!
>> Then it's a critique!
And so the thread...
Put yours on!
and show it!
Then it's a criticism!
And so the thread...
Arguments such as you are a fool and first show that you can do it, are from the same area as criticism not of the essence, which does happen. But this is more from the fact that the essence is presented the way it is presented. No clear wording, no intelligible empirical basis. (That's in your court, Victor!))
Let's not turn this thread into a dump. There is a special place on the forum for it. )))What do you mean you can't see it? :)
The last one was a screenshot, which did not show a single loss trade, which is what I was talking about.
I still have not received a clear answer why the PAMM does not have an Expert Advisor, which should produce a profit.
Our profit is not the first thing we have seen on PAMMs.
.
I really did not get into your Expert Advisor, but it does not really change the matter.
Practice (real) is the criterion of truth. It shows everything. It is in vain that you do not listen to the opinion
of forum members and investors.
"The total number of deals is 49.
By the way do you really think that the test with 49 trades can be trusted?
Taki is clear:
1. You haven't looked at the adaptive EA code.
2. You did not understand the material provided
3. You draw far-reaching conclusions.
I wasn't actually talking to you, I was replying to goldtrader's post and I didn't make any conclusions.
Don't take any of your replies personally, there are other people here too.
We just discussed the difference between dynamic and static stops and takeovers.
You've written quite recently:
"At the link, there is an adaptive algorithm that meets your criteria:
1. ability to learn and adapt
2. only 1 optimizable parameter".
The criterion was stated, and I merely informed you that the Adaptive EA meets that criterion.
Profits and other characteristics were not mentioned :)