[WARNING CLOSED] UmnickTrader Adaptive EA - page 9
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
The following can be said
The total profit is almost equal to the total loss, winning trades are comparable to losing trades, the biggest profitable trade is equal to the biggest losing trade, the average profitable trade is equal to the average losing trade and so on. And all this at a drawdown of 73%. The Expert Advisor is completely unstable in its work. And if we consider that the modeling quality is 25%, then there is no guarantee, because when the modeling quality reaches 100% (or when you set it on a real account), everything may very dramatically change and the EA will simply lose everything. That's what your BMM shows. ))))
One can say the following -
The total profit is almost equal to the total loss, winning trades are comparable to losing trades, the biggest profitable trade is equal to the biggest losing trade, the average profitable trade is equal to the average losing trade and so on. And all this at a drawdown of 73%. The Expert Advisor is completely unstable in its work. And if we consider that the modeling quality is 25%, then there is no guarantee, because when the modeling quality reaches 100% (or when you set it on a real account), everything may very dramatically change and the EA will simply lose everything. That's what your BMM shows. ))))
Maybe it's true - the EA is "axed", but can you write a better one?
Not necessarily some super profitable one - just better than this OOS 9 year test.
If you manage to do that, then we can listen to what you are saying. In the meantime, all your conclusions are "written with holes in water" - because you have not checked how it will be in real life. It may turn out to be the opposite - it is not a disadvantage, but an advantage.
Plus, you need to know in advance how many tens of thousands of quid to deposit, so you don't lose it in the first couple of months.)
This is true for any EA - the future cannot be predicted, i.e. you are just engaging in sophistry, trying to smear an adaptive EA.
Of course, maybe it's true - the Expert Advisor is "hacked to pieces", but can you write better?
Not necessarily some super-profitable one - just better than this passing OOS test of 9 years.
If you manage to do that, then we can listen to what you have to say. For now, all your conclusions are "written with holes in water" - because you have not checked how it will be in real life. It may turn out to be the opposite - it is not a disadvantage, but an advantage.
One question. Why take nine years of OOS? Wouldn't it be better to take 20 years of OOS? )))
One question. Why 9 years of OOS? How about taking 20 years of OOS?
There is an adaptive EA test:
1. 2000.01.01-2001.01.01 - optimization period
2. 2000.01.01-2011.01.01 - testing period (11-1=10 years OOS, but 9 years is enough)
When do you plan to demonstrate the result?
There is a test of adaptive EA:
1. 2000.01.01-2001.01.01 - optimization period
2. 2000.01.01-2011.01.01 - testing period (11-1=10 years OOS, but 9 years is enough)
When do you plan to demonstrate the results?
Why does he need such a test, with such parameters? It is not for trading.
What is the need for such a test with such parameters? It is not for trading.
What do you mean what for? OOS is needed to test the stability to estimate how quickly the EA will lose effectiveness.
If you don't know how to make EAs with a long OOS period, no miracle will happen in real time either :)
If you know how, there is a chance to earn something in real time.
What do you mean what for? The OOS is needed to check the stability, to estimate how quickly the EA will lose efficiency.
If you don't know how to make EAs with a long OOS period, no miracle will happen in real time either :)
If you know how, there is a chance to earn something in real time.
There is no need to become fanatical. It's all well and good, but there's a reasonable measure to everything. A test of 9 years as OOS is pointless, and with such parameters and a modelling quality of 25%. Again, don't you get it? Why do we need the OOS test when the Expert Advisor is not applicable in trading with such parameters?
There's no need to fall into bigotry. It's all well and good, but there's a reasonable measure to everything. A test of 9 years as OOS is pointless, and with such parameters and a modelling quality of 25%. Again, don't you get it? Why do you need the test if the EA is not applicable in trading with such parameters?
Why so many words? Suffice it to say that you cannot create an EA that passes the OOS test for 9 years.