ForumSections

Anti-Martingale vs Martingale : Good prevails!!! - page 24

New comment
OnGoing:

I doubt it. Here is the principle of how it works.

There is a simple adding (pyramiding) on the move with increments and decreasing lots.

The total series stop is constantly pulling up behind the price.

As a result, if it encounters a strong impulse, for example with the news, it generates a large profit and implements that surge on the chart.

All other cases (most of them) - it wipes stop with small loss on pullback.

But it is a tester game again, because usually one cannot enter normally on news shots, even by pauses, and there is only profit in the tester due to such shares.

Not only that, on the real, on the news stops will be closed with a slippage.

I don't know, it's OK. Only the risks are still underestimated))

/The balance sheet picture without the basement/report has been deleted. One more try, you'll go to ban. - Mathemat/

I've got nothing else to do, I've got reports to file. It's like that anecdote. Last time we raffled off a car and this time to the last winner))
zaxod1: I have nothing else to do, and I have to attach reports.

I have warned you, then do as you wish.

The tester reports do not show real equity drawdowns, so I am removing the cheat. Here is an example of how to do it right.

If the initial balance was 10000 c.u. and the lot more than 1 I wonder how much the maximum drawdown could be without cheating.
zaxod1: If the initial balance was 10000 c.u. and lot more than 1 I wonder how much the maximum drawdown could be without cheating.

This is benchmark testing, i.e. very crude and not credible.

All I said is that such statistics should be next to a nice balance chart so that there is no cheating.

I wanted to show my fellow officers that you should not increase the lot but decrease it so they don't wander in vain))
zaxod1: I wanted to show my colleagues that you should not increase the lot, but decrease it, so that they do not wander in vain))

So do it carefully and precisely.

Once again: the drawdown inside the deal is not shown in principle, even if it is 90%. The reason is simple: the minimum "resolution" of the picture is one deal, not one bar.

And the drawdown is visible in the report (basement), because equity is calculated on each bar (or even on a tick, even if it is generated).

I'm taking over the branch - the author is exhausted - and he hasn't inhaled much!))
zaxod1:
I'm taking over the branch - the author is exhausted - and he hasn't inhaled much!))

You don't know what you're talking about.
1...171819202122232425262728293031...33
New comment