Registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship July 2017 . - page 87
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
What's the problem with that?
The problem is that when calculating the rating of a contestant who has a recovery factor of 0, the formula steals them 0.5 points.
(0-0)/(486-0)*0.5 = 0, and a competitor with a recovery factor of 486 will receive (486-0)/(486-0)*0.5 = 0.5
Although 0 is better than 486.
Actually, application of the recovery factor in its pure form without any restrictions in the formula is a bit dubious, because essentially strategies with the recovery factor 0, 500 and 20 can differ in one trade with a difference of a couple of dollars.
Consequently, comparison of trading results of participants distorts the real situation.
We can slightly modify the formula to solve all these problems simultaneously for the current championship (especially as it is not a rule change, but just correction of inaccuracy detected in the formula).
If there are no losing trades, there should not be zero 0, but infinity∞.
The more losses, the lower the profit factor. Correspondingly, the less losses, the higher the profit factor. In the limit, in the absence of losses, the profit factor tends to infinity.
For example, you can see the following picture on the beech, which "deciphers" the profit factor
If there are no losing trades, there should not be zero 0, but infinity∞.
The more losses, the lower the profit factor. Correspondingly, the less losses, the higher the profit factor. In the limit, in the absence of losses, the profit factor tends to infinity.
For example, you can see the following picture on the beech, which "deciphers" the profit factor
That's great, but the formula says Recovery Factor, not Profit Factor :)
what formula is used to calculate it? You just have to match the formulae for the calculation.
what formula is used to calculate it? You just have to compare the formulas to calculate it.
There is a confusion here. One version of the formula is:
Recovery Factor = Absolute Profit/Maximum Drawdown
It is described in the signal tab on mouseover.
But for some reason it shows 0 when there are no losing trades, although the drawdown is always greater than 0 due to spread, etc.
http://prntscr.com/fsl9p0
Greetings, unfortunately you do not have verification. Have you applied for verification, when?
My suggestion to accept. The date by which a participant can be verified is the last day of the competition, not the last day of entry 9.07.17
Server
Vitaly
Andrey
No objection?
There is a misunderstanding here. One version of the formula:
Recovery Factor = Absolute Profit/Maximum Drawdown
It is described in the signal tab when you hover your mouse over it.
But for some reason it shows 0 when there are no losing trades, although the drawdown is always greater than 0 due to spread, etc.
http://prntscr.com/fsl9p0
Absolute Profit andMaximal Drawdown should be calculated as absolute numbers, in $, not in %.
So here we have:
Ifthe Maximum Draw down tends to zero,the Recovery Factor tends to infinity.
Exactly what I said in the previous post.
whining? you're pissing yourself, oleg. you're the one who's unhappy with the rules, not me.
What is the point of participating in something whose rules are not unconditionally accepted by the participants?
Oleg and Andrei
I have a suggestion.
No need to piss your trousers about it.
By and large, the idea of accounting for some kind of formula for tradeis sensible enough.
Discussing the formula itself and even adjusting it to account for suggestions is fine. But it is not necessary to argue until the green salts, wet trousers or virtual beatings.
Explain the rights and duties of the supervisor. What does he/she do, what is the use of him/her?
That decisions should be taken collegially.
Even disagreements, discussions and arguments are fine, but without virtual beatings and even without virtual pissing of trousers.
Even though we are all very different, it is even interesting.
"Who will keep watch over the watchmen?"
The curator has a label of infallibility and will not be led by the nose?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?- Latinwinged phrase, translated as "Who will keep watchmen themselves?" It is used to describe a situation, when people assigned to protect certain laws and rules, themselves violate them, plunder property, which they should protect from thieves, etc.
Origins[edit|edit wiki text]
First found in the Satyrs (Satyr VI, 340)of Juvenal. The ancient Roman poet says that if people's minds are corrupt, no external barriers can prevent them from committing an immoral act[1]:
I hear and know, friends, your long-standing advice;
"A wife must be watched, locked up.The watchmen
How is it to be guarded? For she is circumspect with them to begin with.[2]
Partly, we coordinate some issues with the MQ administration.
At least there is a forum administration.
On the other hand there are competitors and just the inhabitants of the forum. They can all correct us and contribute ideas.
In general, the problem is interesting. Who keeps watch on the side? In a totalitarian society, the side is controlled by the "leader". In a freer society, society itself regulates, or rather its more or less educated part.
Personally, I don't believe that the majority has anything reasonable to offer, if there are objections I can convincingly argue.