Book of comments and suggestions - page 4
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
It's very simple. There are canonical trading rules that were written by experienced and successful traders long time ago, and today only lazy of modern and successful ones will not write about them in a book or blog. Based on them, we can give weight to those criteria in the formula that will pull the Signal to the top. Namely:
1. The higher the profit factor, the more points this signal gets in relation to others.
2. The higher % of profitable trades, the more points this signal receives in relation to others.
3. The lower the equity drawdown, the more points this signal receives relative to others.
4. The lower the equity drawdown, the more points this signal receives relative to others.
5. The higher the profit percentage, the more points this signal receives in relation to others.
6. The longer trades the more points this signal receives in relation to others.
7. The higher the average size of TP relative to SL (proportion in favor of TP), the more points this signal receives in relation to others.
8. Remove or modify information about the number of subscribers.
How to count?
So, we take ALL signal sellers and count each criterion. The important thing is that each successive criterion pushes a lower-quality Signal to the bottom places of the quality table. Summing up all the criteria, we will have the safest and the most stable signals on the first places. If the subscriber does not want stability, but needs wild percentages, for example, here is a filter that allows you to sort by percentage.
We sort the sellers by all indicators and compare them with each other:
In first place would be the seller who has all the key indicators combined better than the others. In second place would be a salesman who has all 6 indicators combined better than the others except for the first. In third place will be a salesman who has all 6 indicators combined better than all the others except the first and the second. And so on.
Explanation by example:
We have two Signals. One is a simple trend indicator, the other is a pure martingale (which has a balance line with waves, not troughs, i.e. first the plus ones are closed, then the minus ones).
1.Signal A has a profit factorof 10, Signal B has a profit factor of2. Signal A rises above Signal B in the rating table.
2.Signal "A" has10% of profitable trades, while Signal "B" has90%. Signal A is worse than Signal B by this indicator, both Signals are equal. But we cannot have equal signals, so we consider the following criterion
3.Signal A has a maximum equity drawdown of10%, while Signal B has a maximum equity drawdown of90%. Signal A is better, so it rises above Signal B in the ranking table.
4.Signal A has a max equity drawdown of30%, while Signal B has a max equity drawdown of10%. Signal B is better, so the signals are equal in points. There cannot be equal, take the following parameter.
5.Signal "A" has1000% increase in balance, Signal "B" has100%. Signal A is better, so it rises above Signal B in the rating table.
6.Signal A has100 trading days, while Signal B has200. Signal B is better, so the signals are equal in points. There can be no equal, we take the next parameter.
7.Signal "A" hasTP=100 SL=10 (10:1), Signal "B" has TP=20 (or dynamic) andno SL. Signal A is better, so it rises above Signal B in the ranking table.
We have 2 trending Signals.
1.Signal A has a profit factorof 10, Signal B has a profit factor of10. Equals
2.Signal "A" has10% of profitable trades, while Signal "B" has10% of profitable trades. Equals .
3.Signal "A" has a max equity drawdown of10%, while Signal "B" has a max equity drawdown of10%. Equals .
4.Signal "A" has a max equity drawdown of30% and Signal "B" has a max equity drawdown of30%. Equals
5.Signal "A" has a1000% increase in balance, while Signal "B" has1000%. Equals
6.Signal "A" has100 trading days, Signal "B" has100. Equals
7.Signal "A" has TP=100 SL=10 (10:1), Signal "B" has TP=100 SL=10 (10:1). equal
8.the creation time of the signal, for example. Can't be at the same time. Well, this is either an ideal case, which cannot be, or one seller created two identical signals. One of the signals created earlier. That one is higher.
In practice it is much more complicated, because the seller may change his tactics during the trading session, trade by martin for half a year, trade by trend strategy for half a year, and trade by conservative medium-term strategy for another half a year.
Or, for example, on the first day he has risked half of the deposit and branded himself with a 50% drawdown rate, and the next year the drawdown has not even reached 10%.
And in this case a solution can be found:
1) Warn the seller (informative aspect: an offer or just a reference) that if he changes his trading style and cares about the rating, he must create a new signal and trade on it already according to new (his) rules.
Rationale: possibility to mislead the subscriber by low-loss trading for a long period, and then, without warning, to open large lots or simply change the trading rules: increase the SL and so on. And it doesn't matter whether the seller warned about it or left the "news" field blank. There is a story and it will work for the seller, but it can also work negatively for the subscriber. So, if the seller has 'messed up' by taking a couple of dangerous and risky risks, you'd better recreate the Signal and play it safe until the end, in case you care about the rating.
2) Add more averages to the calculation. Median. I.e. which numbers appear more frequently: thus, if there was a 50% drawdown once a year, and a 10% drawdown the rest of the time, then 50 is simply thrown out, and the median becomes 10. Then we have one more figure added to the calculation.
I.e., there will be max drawdown and median drawdown, for which rating points will be given.
As far as subscribers are concerned, we can see how the crowd effect works, using a vivid example. When a number plays on you more and more with each new subscriber, speeding up the acquisition of new ones, mistakenly believing that subscribers have looked through and compared all the results. listened to their inner independent self and decided what matters to them: conservatism, moderation or aggressiveness.
Therefore, I still propose to consider the following options, again, more or less leveling the playing field for prospective salespeople. We're not sitting here for statistics, but for subscribers' money, otherwise what's the pointof paid public monitoring with the ability to connect? Any seller wants passive income from sellers, that's why they create a signal, otherwise - "FREE" - give it away for free. It's all reasonable, all logical here.
Here's an alternative, an approximate one (see pic // It's photoshop, I didn't hack the site). The first one is filler.
One smiley - up to 100 subscribers.
Two smiles - from 100 to 1000.
Three smiles - more than 1000.
The second one is numeric.
Thus, when a Subscriber sees two Signals with two smilies or 100+, he/she will not know who has more, and will just look at the numbers he/she is interested in. I.e. as practice shows, from two Signals, one with 101 subscribers and other with 999, subscriber will choose with 999. And so, the site will promote and advocate the highest quality trade. I.e., in the tops to put primarily stability, safety, profitability, efficiency. And all these indicators should tend to an equal proportion, without slack in trading, stagnation, sharp rushes and drops. No foul play.
And the subscriber will decide for himself what he needs: the "opinion of the editorial board" (rating) or personal preferences. Without infringing on the rights of the missing subscribers of other promising Signals.
Ivan, could you please first
1. state your proposals point by point
2. justify them.
You get a stream of consciousness and lose your clever thoughts).
Ivan, could you please first
1. state your proposals point by point
2. justify them.
You get a stream of consciousness and lose your clever thoughts).
Stream of consciousness is easier to reproduce, I can't do it any other way. Although, if you sit on it a bit longer, you can formulate it more clearly, I don't deny it.
In practice it turns out to be much more complicated, because during trading the seller can change his tactics, half a year trading by martin, half a year by trend strategy, and another half a year by conservative medium-term.
Or, for example, the first day he risked half a deposit, branded himself with a 50% drawdown rate, and the next year the drawdown did not reach even 10%.
And in this case you can find a solution:
1) Warn the seller (informative aspect: an offer or just a reference), that if he changes the trading style and he cares about rating, he must create a new signal and trade on it according to new (his) rules.
Justification: possibility to mislead subscriber by low-loss trading for long period, and then, without warning, to open big lots or just change trading rules: increase SL and so on. And it doesn't matter whether the seller warned about it or left the "news" field blank. There is a story and it will work for the seller, but it can also work negatively for the subscriber. So, if the seller has "messed up" by taking a couple of dangerous and risky risks, you'd better recreate the Signal and play it safe until the end, in case you care about the rating.
2) Add more averages to the calculation. Median. I.e. which numbers appear more frequently: thus, if there was a 50% drawdown once in a year, and a 10% drawdown the rest of the time, then 50 is simply thrown out and the median becomes 10. Then we will have another indicator added to the calculations.
I.e., there will be max drawdown and median drawdown, for which rating points will be given.
As far as subscribers are concerned, we can see how the crowd effect works, using a vivid example. When the number is playing upon you more and more with each new subscriber, speeding up the acquisition of new ones, mistakenly thinking that subscribers have looked through and compared all the results. listened to their inner independent self and decided what matters to them: conservatism, moderation or aggressiveness.
Therefore, I still propose to consider the following options, again, more or less leveling the playing field for prospective sellers. We're not sitting here for statistics, but for subscriber money, otherwise what's the pointof paid public monitoring with the ability to connect? Any seller wants passive income from sellers, that's why they create a signal, otherwise - "FREE" - give it away for free. Everything here is justified, everything is logical.
Here is an alternative, approximate (see fig.// It's photoshop, I didn't hack the site). The first one is filler.
One smiley - up to 100 subscribers.
Two smiles - 100 to 1000
Three smiles - more than 1000.
The second one is numeric.
Thus, when a subscriber sees two Signals with two smiley faces or the inscription 100+, he won't know who has more, and will only look at the figures that interest him. I.e. as practice shows, from two Signals, one with 101 subscribers and other with 999, subscriber will choose with 999. And so, the site will promote and advocate the highest quality trade. I.e., in the tops to put primarily stability, safety, profitability, efficiency. And all these indicators should tend to an equal proportion, without slackening of trade, stagnation, sharp ups and downs. Without foul play.
And subscriber will decide for himself what he needs: "the editorial opinion" (rating), or personal preferences. Without infringing on the rights of the missing subscribers of other promising Signals.
About subscribers - who told you that they are poor people who can't figure out who to connect to and go to certain signals only because of subscribers?
Isn't it the case that a user has +1000 subscribers in a month. Isn't it to your credit that the crowd follows the crowd? Explain why this happened? We wrote to desk service back when we had less than 1000 subscribers, to limit the display to at least 1000+, they said it would be further 1500, 2000... We would have had it even if the display had been limited to 1000+ subscribers, but in this way subscribers would have been going to other signals.
Isn't it the case that a user has +1000 subscribers in a month. Isn't it to your credit that the crowd follows the crowd? Explain why this happened? We wrote to desk service back when we had less than 1000 subscribers, to limit the display to at least 1000+, they said it would be further 1500, 2000... We would have had it even if the display had been limited to 1000+ subscribers, but that way subscribers would have been going to other signals.
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing
Is there an "artificial intelligence" software? ,? Where it is possible to program one's character, thoughts, desires. so that this program will live on after our death - in the NETWORK.
Alexander Ivanov, 2017.02.11 13:33
Another question. After departing to the other world. I.e., after trader's death, will his account remain in mql5.com?
Or it will be immediately deleted - after receiving the information from the federal database?
Is it possible to make a transfer from mql5.com purse to the bank accounts of your relatives if the account was not visited for 1-3 years?
It will be possible to create transfer destinations in advance of departure.