Trading Systems Leaders in this forum (automated trading systems) are winning more than 3000 pips in a month (30000$ investing one lot every time). Click here to register and get more information
stop littering this thread with your personal garbage....
Quote:
Originally Posted by reza1982
I need a signal receiver expert , this expert is very suitable for who can not open position manually via signals that he receive from signal sellers or any site every day .
for example:this expert receives this signal from zifx site: buy Eurusd@1.571 stoploss:1.5722 tp:1.5794
and open this position automatically .
i know an indicator receive forecast from forex factory site and show it on the chart :this indicator called FFCal.
i am very busy and need this expert open position automatically for me.
i have not enough time for receive the signals.
if the EA is coded right, a back test is as good as a forward test... assuming there is no scalping... and timeframes are large enough to be realistic....
but most don't know how to backtest, see a billion dollar graph and get their lamborghinis in their head until their dreams are shattered, then blame the backtester.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FseXy
No backtest results are any good at all. Only forward tests prove anything worthwhile.
if the EA is coded right, a back test is as good as a forward test... assuming there is no scalping... and timeframes are small enough to be realistic....
but most don't know how to backtest, see a billion dollar graph and get their lamborghinis in their head until their dreams are shattered, then blame the backtester.
VERY GOOD Statement!
Why everybody does backtests with MM on (increasing Lotsize...)?
Why everybody does optimization only with balance graph?
Easy answer: Most people do not know what information a backtest will give or they donīt want to think about it.
As you said, itīs easier to look at the billion dollar picture and dream than to think!
if the EA is coded right, a back test is as good as a forward test... assuming there is no scalping... and timeframes are small enough to be realistic....
but most don't know how to backtest, see a billion dollar graph and get their lamborghinis in their head until their dreams are shattered, then blame the backtester.
That implies that the pricedata as well as the Backtester itself is OK - it isn't! Yes, I agree that the backtester is robust, but the data is another matter entirely. And it also depends on how you define 'scalping'. The official definition would appear to be 1-5 pips, though brokers have often shoved this into the 10-30 pip range, but most traders would disagree with this definition. So, if you went with the former definition, chose to backtest on EURCHF, and your EA didn't 'scalp' (10 pips TP) your end results run the risk of including an unacceptable number of bogus trades. Increasing this to 20 pips still has an unacceptable number of potential trades that would not occur in real life - see below. And other pairs such as GBPCHF are even worse! btw, this only checks adjacent bars opened at the 'correct times' - it does not include Close/Open prices that had missing bars in between, so what you see is a 'best-case' scenario. Also, notice the number of 'missing' bars - quality data? methinks not...
FWIW, EURUSD is surprisingly free from these problems, so should be the pair of choice for backtesting. Also, these errors drop off almost completely after Nov. '06, so are far as I'm concerned, this is the reason for the unrealistic results the majority of EA's show before this date - so imo, the only worthwhile data Metaquotes offers is from Nov '06 to present...
Chm - 15 min intraday
Linear Mode
