Unbreakable (에 의해 IceBringer)
사용자가 이 시스템을 삭제했습니다.
Unbreakable 토론
Jul 17, 2010 at 20:18
802 개의 뷰
5 Replies
Jul 17, 2010 부터 멤버
게시물4
Jul 19, 2010 at 06:59
(편집됨 Jul 19, 2010 at 07:00)
Hello everyone. This is backtest of system: https://img690.imageshack.us/i/93045917.png/
Jul 19, 2010 at 11:40
(편집됨 Jul 19, 2010 at 11:41)
So what,
your account is demo, your broker is hidden, your history is hidden. Your backtest has no modelling quality and I still cannot understand what you want: sell, lease, manage accouts or just passing by. If you're just passing by it's ok but I have the strange feeling that you wanna sell something, EA or service and I can assure you that this is not the right way to do it.
your account is demo, your broker is hidden, your history is hidden. Your backtest has no modelling quality and I still cannot understand what you want: sell, lease, manage accouts or just passing by. If you're just passing by it's ok but I have the strange feeling that you wanna sell something, EA or service and I can assure you that this is not the right way to do it.
"In trading, winning is frequently a question of luck, but losing is always a matter of skill."
Jul 17, 2010 부터 멤버
게시물4
Jul 20, 2010 at 11:16
This is alfa test of our EA. So, no trades will reveal yet.
Broker not hidden. What is right way? Bring me cosmic knowledge, wise alien.
forexma posted:
So what,
your account is demo, your broker is hidden, your history is hidden. Your backtest has no modelling quality and I still cannot understand what you want: sell, lease, manage accouts or just passing by. If you're just passing by it's ok but I have the strange feeling that you wanna sell something, EA or service and I can assure you that this is not the right way to do it.
Broker not hidden. What is right way? Bring me cosmic knowledge, wise alien.
Oct 28, 2009 부터 멤버
게시물1430
Jul 20, 2010 at 11:42
I think he's talking about the broker on your MyFxBook account, not the backtest.
However I will note that your backtest is against Alpari and your hidden broker on MyFxBook is 500:1 leverage, A leverage that Alpari does not offer on demo accounts.
So, we can draw one of two conclusions. Either it's not Alpari you are running the forward test on, or you entered incorrect details on MyFxBook when setting up the account.
It might be worth you verifying your MyFxBook account if you are here to sell something. Also, you can upload your backtest on here, which allows people to get a better view of it.
However I will note that your backtest is against Alpari and your hidden broker on MyFxBook is 500:1 leverage, A leverage that Alpari does not offer on demo accounts.
So, we can draw one of two conclusions. Either it's not Alpari you are running the forward test on, or you entered incorrect details on MyFxBook when setting up the account.
It might be worth you verifying your MyFxBook account if you are here to sell something. Also, you can upload your backtest on here, which allows people to get a better view of it.
11:15, restate my assumptions: 1. Mathematics is the language of nature. 2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. 3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge. Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.
Jul 17, 2010 부터 멤버
게시물4
Jul 20, 2010 at 12:06
stevetrade posted:
I think he's talking about the broker on your MyFxBook account, not the backtest.
However I will note that your backtest is against Alpari and your hidden broker on MyFxBook is 500:1 leverage, A leverage that Alpari does not offer on demo accounts.
...
Ohhh. My bad. Leverage 1:100 ofc.
Oct 28, 2009 부터 멤버
게시물1430
Jul 20, 2010 at 12:20
I am intrigued to know why your modelling quality is n/a though.
You're running a 5 minute backtest on every tick and you have no mismatched chart errors.
What's interesting is that you have 87151 bars in the test and 87151 ticks modelled.
Which doesn't stack up.
Maybe you're just doing something so clever that I've never seen it before, if so it would be nice to know what it is.
You're running a 5 minute backtest on every tick and you have no mismatched chart errors.
What's interesting is that you have 87151 bars in the test and 87151 ticks modelled.
Which doesn't stack up.
Maybe you're just doing something so clever that I've never seen it before, if so it would be nice to know what it is.
11:15, restate my assumptions: 1. Mathematics is the language of nature. 2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. 3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge. Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.
*상업적 사용 및 스팸은 허용되지 않으며 계정이 해지될 수 있습니다.
팁: 이미지/유튜브 URL을 게시하면 게시물에 자동으로 삽입됩니다!
팁: @기호를 입력하여 이 토론에 참여하는 사용자 이름을 자동으로 완성합니다.
