Registration for the MetaQuotes-Demo Championships in May - page 36

New comment
 
Natalya Kostenko:


Vitaly! Well done! You have done good monitoring. On Friday/Saturday, though, I saw the wrong sorting by Equity. And since leaders are determined by it, it should be so by default. And the function of sorting by another indicator is also great!

Can I ask you something? Do you have your monitoring specifically tailored to Metakvots? Is it possible to adapt to any broker?


Sideways observer of the post... :-)

How much/what did you pay to "any broker"?

P.S. Please do not consider it as flooding.

 
Yuriy Zaytsev:
2,390984758

Vitaly , you have all the data in the table!


Yes, that's right.
 

Who can communicate well and in a friendly way ? while also knowing English.

On the English-speaking part of the forum a girl to us, polite, intelligent, cheerful, adequate gentlemen - with good English - help.

 
Sergey Gritsay:

I checked the calculations or I don't understand the maths at all, in all three examples the result is not correct. Also, the question is why the second example uses a formula with a difference from one in the others does not?

Maybe Yuri made a mistake in his calculations (I didn't check), but the formulas are correct.

The meaning is very simple, but in reality the positions of participants relative to each other in each of the criteria are taken into account.
So we get the following: we normalize relative to 0 and 1, consequently the maximal value of a criterion will be 1, and the minimal one - 0.
As drawdown is smaller, the better, unlike the balance and Sharpe, calculation of a criterion is "reversed", the obtained value is subtracted from 1.

The second nomination can be called "Risk Justification" as this is exactly what is calculated in Yuri's example.
 
Roman Shiredchenko:


A bystander to the post... :-)

How much/what did you pay "any broker"?

P.S. Please don't take this as flubbing.


And why an outsider? or do you mean yourself? and why would anyone or anyone have to pay anything? it's not flubbing, but rather slander. Only interested for personal use.
 
Andrey Dik:

Maybe Yuri made a mistake in his calculations (I didn't check), but the formulas are correct.

The meaning is very simple, but actually the positions of participants relative to each other in each of the criteria are taken into account.
So we get the following: we normalize relative to 0 and 1, consequently the maximal value of a criterion will be 1, and the minimal one - 0.
As the drawdown is smaller, the better, unlike the balance and Sharpe, calculation of criterion is "reversed", the obtained value is subtracted from 1.

I'm clear in principle that's what I thought. As for Jury's calculations, most likely he has copied the data incorrectly, therefore it may mislead some people. Another question about coefficients, I understand they are used as weights?
 
Natalya Kostenko:

And why a third party? or are you referring to yourself? and why would anyone or anyone have to pay anything? this is not flubbing, but rather slander. I am only interested in it for my own personal use.


About myself. Slander was nowhere near me - it's not in my rules.

What kind of monitoring of participants' trades on any brokers can there be?

 
Sergey Gritsay:

is clear as a matter of principle. As for Jura's calculations, most likely he copied the data incorrectly, so it may mislead some people. Andrey Another question about the coefficients, I understand they are used as scales?
Oops yes copy - paste , that's such a problem, especially the templates - I'll fix that now, THANK YOU!
 
Roman Shiredchenko:


About myself.

What kind of monitoring of participants' trades on any brokers can be?


I'm not just here. I'm in many places )))) and I have different activities, including monitoring contests on one resource. That's why I am interested in how something similar, but universal, can be done :)
 
Natalya Kostenko:

I'm not just here. I'm a lot of places )))) and I'm multi-tasking, including monitoring contests on one resource. That's why I'm wondering how you can do something similar, but universal :)


Aaaa.... :-)

So drop the link from here and that's it...

1...293031323334353637383940414243...147
New comment
Reason: