September registration for the Real Accounts (Cents) Championship is now open - page 33
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
For me personally, the number of trades should not be one or two, but many. And one (two, three) successful trades with maximum lot "shouldn't" play a significant role in the final statistics - and your system of calculations doesn't work out that way. With examples later.
The rules set a minimum for the number of trades -- and that's more than one or two.
But in general, yes, the more trades, the more objective the indicator is.
The rules set a minimum for the number of deals -- which is more than one or two.
On the whole, yes, the more trades, the more objective the score.
Don't you understand that the number of lots does not decide anything for a long time! Even in Mt5 the number of lots are combined into a single deal ! If you don't understand it why do you trade at all ?
How can you not understand that the number of lots does not solve anything! Even in Mt5 the number of lots are combined into a single trade ! If you don't understand it why do you trade at all ?
You must be talking about netting !
Yes, you can hold one position open indefinitely and periodically add or subtract volume to this position, such a strategy makes sense too.
For netting and hedging, everything is the same, but for hedging you always have before your eyes the levels of all your open positions and information about how much profit or loss you made with each open position. In netting you will not keep track of it, and take levels are levelled in every deal, which is not very convenient. You may set pending orders at least).
There are two notions: trades and deals.
You're talking about trades and I'm talking about deals. The difference between netting and hedging is the same.
Let's not confuse the concepts.
How can you not understand that the number of lots does not solve anything! Even in Mt5 the number of lots are combined into a single trade ! If you don't understand it why are you trading at all ?
You think you understand everything better than anyone else, that's your mistake, your delusion.
The number of correctly opened deals, which led to a positive result, indicates the effectiveness of TS, its ability to correctly identify the direction of the upcoming movement, and correctly determine the entry and exit points.
On the contrary, a large number of losing trades indicates a low quality of the TS, its inability to correctly determine the direction of the upcoming movement.
The ratio of profitable and losing trades indicates the degree of effectiveness of the TS. The lower the ratio, the worse the TS is. And vice versa, the higher the ratio, the better the TS is.
>>>>>>>
If we remember that CLO is the result that approximately corresponds (qualitatively, i.e. without taking into account the profit and loss values) to 50% of profitable trades by 50% of unprofitable ones
you can consider quality of trade by the ratio (amount of_profits)/(amount of_losses)
So, ifnumber_profits = 100%, andnumber_losses = 0%, it is a completely deterministic and not a random win.
Ifnumber_profits = 90%, andnumber_losses = 10%, then it is far from a random win.
etc. an appropriate scale for evaluating the quality of the trade can be introduced.
You think you understand everything better than anyone else - that is your mistake, your delusion.
The number of correctly opened trades, which led to a positive result, indicates the effectiveness of the TS, its ability to correctly identify the direction of the upcoming movement, and correctly determine the entry and exit points.
On the contrary, a large number of losing trades indicates a low quality of the TS, its inability to correctly determine the direction of the upcoming movement.
The ratio of profitable and losing trades indicates the degree of effectiveness of the TS. The lower the ratio, the worse the TS is. And vice versa, the higher the ratio, the better the TS is.
>>>>>>>
Everything is correct, but there are nuances. If for example a strategy uses SL and TP and SL is larger than TP, then there will always be more positive trades than negative ones. And if the volumes of trades are different? We should not look at the number of trades, but at (pips*volume) of negative and positive trades. And yes, the more trades, the more real the truth)
Everything is correct, but there are nuances. If, for example, the strategy uses SL and TP and the SL is larger than the TP, then there will always be more positive trades than negative ones. And if the volumes of trades are different? We should not look at the number of trades, but at (pips*volume) of negative and positive trades. And yes, the more trades, the more true.)
This is exactly the nuances depending on subtleties and variations of different TS, i.e. its internal characteristics. In fact, when looking at the state, the final result is seen, reflecting the external characteristics, by which the quality of the TS is assessed. And it is the final result that is estimated. And here the nuances do not play a role, because no one is interested in what the SL and TP were, why they were so, and why no measures were taken to optimise them, etc., etc.
It is precisely the nuances that depend on the subtleties and variations of the various TS, i.e. its internal characteristics. In fact, when you look at the state, you see the final result, which reflects the external characteristics by which the quality of the TC is judged. And it is the final result that is estimated. And here already nuances do not play a role, because no one cares what were the SL and TP, why they were so, and why no measures were taken to optimize them, etc., etc.
And you don't admit that different TCs may be applied in the contest?
And the final result in no way characterizes each of them individually. The author has only pursued the goal to gain profit and some other indicators, and maybe the system was not used at all. I think it is useless to search for the efficiency formula for competitive accounts.
As always all the bikes have been in the garage for a long time. Maximum Equity profit, and Maximum profit with minimum drawdown.
Don't you think it's possible that different TCs may be used in a competition?
And the final result does not characterise each of them individually. The author only pursued the goal of making a profit, some other indicators, and perhaps there was no system at all. I think it is useless to look for the efficiency formula for competitive accounts.
As always all the bikes have been in the garage for a long time. Maximum return on Equity, and maximum profit with minimum drawdown.
I will support Natalia. I also think for contests, it is sufficient to take into account 3 indicators Max Profit, Maximum Profit to Maximum Drawdown ratio and deposit load or margin level, all the calculations should be based on Equity.
Don't you think it's possible that different TCs may be used in a competition?
And the final result does not characterise each of them individually. The author only pursued the goal of making a profit, some other indicators, and perhaps there was no system at all. I think it is useless to look for the efficiency formula for competitive accounts.
As always all the bikes have been in the garage for a long time. Maximum Equity profit, and Maximum profit with minimum drawdown.
So why don't I allow it??? On the contrary, I'm arguing that different TCs apply in the contest. There are as many participants in the competition, so many different TSs.
At the end of the contest, we have the results of all participants. These results are already fixed and do not change. Having the table of contest results, we have a right to analyse contestants' results. Having analysed the results of each participant, we can judge which result is better and which is worse. If you think it is a futile exercise, that's your business, and it has nothing to do with bicycles and garages.
By the way, it seems to me that you don't have a complete grasp of the subject, since you suggest this as a determining factor: "Maximum Equity Profit".
By the way, it seems to me that you don't have a complete grasp of the subject, since you suggest this as a determining factor: "Maximum Equity Profit".