Success Stories in Algorithmic Trading - we need more of them! - page 3

New comment
Oleksandr Medviediev #:
Thanks for the tip, Conor. What's your story?

I managed to pass the FTMO challenges with an EA that used the impulse macd (and standard risk management). My strategy wasn't to leave the EA on the chart, it was to place it on the chart at key times - for example, I needed a short entry on EURUSD when the Fed raised interest rates, so I placed the EA on the chart when it was too late to signal a macd buy, and then it was forced to look for the next macd sell signal (which was the desired situation). I had the macd looking for opportunities on the M15 timeframe, and I use a slow length ma period of 50 - 70 to push past small liquidity corrections that can interfere with the trend on this timeframe.

Thanks Conor. So you pick the moment, the EA does the rest, correct? Was passing FTMO easy with this approach?

The realistic-expectations point is the one most people skip. The traders who last are usually the ones who stop measuring success by win rate and start measuring it by whether the edge survives costs. A system that wins 60% of trades can still lose money if commission and swap eat the winners. The tools that help are the unglamorous ones: cost auditors, drawdown monitors, and honest backtest verification. The miracle EA does not exist, but a mediocre system with good risk control and honest accounting can survive long enough to compound.

Oleksandr Medviediev #:
Thanks Conor. So you pick the moment, the EA does the rest, correct? Was passing FTMO easy with this approach?
Yes the EA does the rest. Passing the FTMO challenge was definitely easier this way, but I didn't trust things at first. I failed previous challenges, and after journaling the trades, it was failed because of my own manual trades that time.
Jevon Naldo Yoshield #:

The realistic-expectations point is the one most people skip. The traders who last are usually the ones who stop measuring success by win rate and start measuring it by whether the edge survives costs. A system that wins 60% of trades can still lose money if commission and swap eat the winners. The tools that help are the unglamorous ones: cost auditors, drawdown monitors, and honest backtest verification. The miracle EA does not exist, but a mediocre system with good risk control and honest accounting can survive long enough to compound.

Thanks Jevon. Did cost auditing change anything in your own results?

What’s your story?

Jevon Naldo Yoshield #:

The realistic-expectations point is the one most people skip. The traders who last are usually the ones who stop measuring success by win rate and start measuring it by whether the edge survives costs. A system that wins 60% of trades can still lose money if commission and swap eat the winners. The tools that help are the unglamorous ones: cost auditors, drawdown monitors, and honest backtest verification. The miracle EA does not exist, but a mediocre system with good risk control and honest accounting can survive long enough to compound.

Well said. Here's a related excerpt from my user Profile:

Here's a little known position sizing method to help with scaling up.

Let's assume that you have a simple entry and exit EA with a profit factor of 1.5, for example:

1. Run it through the Tester. Testing on the Real Ticks of your live broker-dealer's data is ideal if your machine's CPU and RAM can handle that. I prefer to run through 4000 round trades or more.
2. Read the Tester Report carefully. Additionally, use my custom ProfitByHourReportService (in my Blog, below) to analyze hourly profit by trade entries─not by trade exits as the native MT5 Tester Report does.
3. Pay particular attention to the months, days, and hours in which the EA is profitable.
4. Code a time filter that blocks entries during the worst times in the EA. See my millisecond-based "Trading Time Filter for Any MT5 Expert Advisor" code snippet (in my Blog, below).
5. Run a fresh backtest with the time filter implemented.
6. Examine the average count of consecutive loss trades─let's call this "NL".
7. Code automatic position sizing based on say, 1% of account balance, into the EA.
8. Code an exception to that 1% position size that triggers when NL+1 occurs (the EA has exceeded its average loss count).
9. Code an overriding minimum position size of say, 0.01, to operate when that exception occurs.
10. Code a resumption of 1% position sizing that triggers when one trade closes in profit.

Of course, additional backtests should be run as necessary following each code edit. The purpose of the process outlined above is to solve the mystery of attempting to predict when the EA's logic will be profitable versus unprofitable.
To be clear, I'm presently using this in my live algorithmic trading.
123
New comment