Reliability EA 2.0 (By mwscofield)
| Gain : | +200.98% |
| Drawdown | 33.57% |
| Pips: | 34768.5 |
| Trades | 303 |
| Won: |
|
| Lost: |
|
| Type: | Demo |
| Leverage: | 1:100 |
| Trading: | Automated |
Reliability EA 2.0 Discussion
Oct 25, 2010 at 18:29
1,892 Views
9 Replies
Member Since Oct 28, 2009
78 posts
Nov 24, 2010 at 15:24
(edited Nov 24, 2010 at 15:29)
Interesting results...
Member Since Dec 16, 2009
9 posts
Nov 24, 2010 at 15:45
did u take a backtest? and what the result? thanks
Member Since Oct 28, 2009
78 posts
Nov 24, 2010 at 15:47
Unfortunately, you cannot back test the EA (this is the biggest drawdown that keeps me from considering it as a buy). I wonder when the EA will start closing the present open positions.
Member Since Dec 16, 2009
9 posts
Nov 24, 2010 at 15:54
yup... it open its position from 1 Nov till now.
Currently are you doing any manual trade or automated trade?
Currently are you doing any manual trade or automated trade?
Member Since Oct 28, 2009
78 posts
Nov 24, 2010 at 20:46
Mostly automated using ProForexRobot, Megadroid, GT-Shadow and Pipstrider.
I am testing Probability 7.0 and maybe I will include it in my toolbox next month.
Reliability 2.0 seems a bit expensive, backtests seem a bit dubious, because you cannot test them on your own even if you bought the EA. I do not feel up to parting with $1000 to test Reliability to find out that it does not work as 'advertised'...
I am testing Probability 7.0 and maybe I will include it in my toolbox next month.
Reliability 2.0 seems a bit expensive, backtests seem a bit dubious, because you cannot test them on your own even if you bought the EA. I do not feel up to parting with $1000 to test Reliability to find out that it does not work as 'advertised'...
Member Since Oct 28, 2009
78 posts
Jan 12, 2011 at 08:15
Indeed, it seems that starting it with anything then 10000$ seems quite risky. Unless the System takes into account the equity size and opens new positions at much lower rates.
Member Since May 10, 2010
9 posts
Jan 13, 2011 at 14:10
Let me provide some insight into this, and I’ll do it by providing a simple example:
Let’s say you have two open trades, one is +120 pips, and the second is -100 pips. Overall your net equity increases by +20 pips. Then let’s say you close the positive trade, locking in that profit, leaving an open trade of -100 pips still active. The natural reaction when looking at this scenario is to say, ‘Wow look at the drawdown of -100 pips, that is terrible’. But looking at the big picture, what has actually happened is that your equity has increased by +20 pips.
This is what happens with Reliability EA. It is normal to look at the results and say, ‘Wow look at the drawdown of -9000 pips’, but in reality that is only because the larger more profitable trades were closed locking in that profit, and these have been left open. Overall a net gain has actually been achieved. It is important to look at the current equity (NOT the open trades NOR the account balance) as the determining factor of the profitability of the EA. In this test, the equity has increased +82% in just over 2 months.
Does that make sense? I hope it helps shed some light on what is happening. Again, this reaction is normal and to be expected, but based on incorrect factors. Keep the comments coming! I am happy to answer any questions.
And yes, the EA has money management coded in, so the trade sizes will increase or decrease based on equity.
Let’s say you have two open trades, one is +120 pips, and the second is -100 pips. Overall your net equity increases by +20 pips. Then let’s say you close the positive trade, locking in that profit, leaving an open trade of -100 pips still active. The natural reaction when looking at this scenario is to say, ‘Wow look at the drawdown of -100 pips, that is terrible’. But looking at the big picture, what has actually happened is that your equity has increased by +20 pips.
This is what happens with Reliability EA. It is normal to look at the results and say, ‘Wow look at the drawdown of -9000 pips’, but in reality that is only because the larger more profitable trades were closed locking in that profit, and these have been left open. Overall a net gain has actually been achieved. It is important to look at the current equity (NOT the open trades NOR the account balance) as the determining factor of the profitability of the EA. In this test, the equity has increased +82% in just over 2 months.
Does that make sense? I hope it helps shed some light on what is happening. Again, this reaction is normal and to be expected, but based on incorrect factors. Keep the comments coming! I am happy to answer any questions.
And yes, the EA has money management coded in, so the trade sizes will increase or decrease based on equity.
michael.w.scofield@
*Commercial use and spam will not be tolerated, and may result in account termination.
Tip: Posting an image/youtube url will automatically embed it in your post!
Tip: Type the @ sign to auto complete a username participating in this discussion.
