Is it possible to code an EA for MT4, which would trade on the real as in the tester using control points? - 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
The key point here is that we don't tell the tester to work for the future. :)
The easiest way is to test on a minute-by-minute basis on an open bar. If you have stops/profits over 10 four-digit pips, you get results almost like a real one and also very fast.
The easiest way is to test on a minute-by-minute basis on an open bar. If you have stops/profits greater than 10 four-digit pips, you get a result almost like a real one and also very fast.
Thanks, but again I do not understand, - if you say that in the mode of control points tester looks ahead, then how can you explain such a difference in runs as posted earlier(clarified) - "How can we assess this option compared to, say, - 1) run by ticks and ran by points, the result is the same, 2) after changing the EA and settings runs differ dramatically" ? After all, the first variant gives the identical runs (all on a long period), the second variant is different, so it turns out that the first one didn't let the tester peek into the future, and the second one suddenly started peeking (or vice versa)? :)
Thank you, but again I do not understand - if you say that in the mode of control points tester is looking into the future, then how can you explain such a difference in runs as posted earlier (clarified) - "How can we assess this option compared to, say, - 1) we ran by ticks and ran by points, the result is the same, 2) after changing the EA and settings runs are radically different" ? After all, the first variant gives the identical runs (all on a long period), the second variant is different, so it turns out that the first one didn't let the tester peek into the future, and the second one suddenly started peeking (or vice versa)? :)
Forget about the ticks. MT doesn't store ticks. It generates them by OHLC of the smallest available bar. so accuracy is not increased, but time slows down significantly.
Forget the tics. MT does not store ticks. It generates them from the OHLC of the smallest available bar. so accuracy is not increased, but time is slowed down significantly.
It is clear what it generates, the question of the difference or identity of the runs due to peeking or not peeking into the future is still unanswered.
It is clear what generates this, the question of the difference or identity of the runs in relation to peeking or not peeking into the future is still unanswered.
No one will answer you. There are no psychics here.
No one will ever answer you. There are no psychics here.
Let me clarify a bit, owls are martin, in the first specified variant of runs owls observe the bar opening(after start()), and the order step is higher, in the second variant of run does not observe the bar, and the order step is shallow or the same as in the first variant of runs. In each variant runs both on all ticks and on points. The trades are just allowed after a price change, like you said, by a set minimum step towards the price change.
No one will answer you. There are no psychics here.
Yes, there is.
Check.
And drink!
It is clear what generates, the question of the difference or identity of the runs in relation to peeking or not peeking into the future is as yet unanswered.
As our Ensign used to say.
Learn the math, God forbid it should come in handy. Help yourself.
https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1490
https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1417
https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1512
https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/1511
Read the articles, they bring wisdom, goodness eternal. https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/mt4/
This is understandable, but the question is how it can be organised in code for real trading, that is, to create (simulate, or whatever) such points, if at all approaches the definition of possible. :)
I - this is understood.
I repeat: "No".
No way, or with all sorts of crap - IMHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!