Yeoeleven,

In your combo set up, on Goblin Fibo, you're using mm set to 1, which determines lot size based on account size. Yet you started trading this with a higher lot size than recommended. I'm confused because it's increasing your lot size with each pipstep trade, yet it's too high for the account size, isn't it? If mm was 0 would it still increase lot size?

Yeoeleven,

Trading the size you are on the combo, that's a mini account. But you have AccountIsNormal set to 0. Isn't "0" for a standard account?

[quote]I came across a thread that mrtools are having an arguement with 1 of the member trying to sell 10point3 mod. And the martha farker claims that mr.tools is testing for too long period, and wanting to make a backtest without MM to prove who's version is better. I ran through a backtest with V12 on conservative mode and tight stop loss, tight pip step, this is the out come without MM. Look carefully on the starting capital and the balance after a year without MM. I think that is the purpose of backtest. No doubt, for me its still rubbish, but atleast I have some important information in my mind, I'll know what is the next step of development. If I modify my EA, what should take into consideration. I personally have 4 different folder on my desktop to collect EAs from different author and I also bought a few commercial EA(thought it would work )

Category A
A best EA did tremendous result on at least 90% and above MQ backtest and getting about half of the performance on live trading compare to backtest.

Category B
A good EA did extremely good result on at least 90% and above MQ backtest and getting less than 20% of the performance of live trading compare to backtest(this type of EA would be over optimize, and pattern recognization. NFP and FOMC will kill them) 10point3 fall in this category

Category C
A bad EA did good result on at least 90% MQ backtest because without stop loss, use this kind of trading robot on live account is a betting game!

Hello David & John,

Thanks for the V12 will be testing alongside another volatility mod (the one from the other thread you were talking about) BTW that backtest was without MM, or MM=false.The lotsize was based on volatility also,currently trying to tame this monster somewhat at least to space out the lotsize with the pipstep in some sort of sequence.Really feel the range for the timeframe you use this e.a. is key and then matching your lotsize to the pipstep and then to the range. The problem is bringing all this together, but feel like I am getting close.

Regards,
tools

Having set MM1 it takes over the setting for the opening lot size and trades according to the risk setting. It then follows that subsequent trades will increase during the progression by the multiplier nominated in this case Fibonnacci.

robp also posted

Trading the size you are on the combo, that's a mini account. But you have AccountIsNormal set to 0. Isn't "0" for a standard account?

I have found that AccountisNormal0 setting works for .1 and the AccountisNormal1 setting works for .01

John

Hi mrtools,

I was testing Vol and had the following result, have since discontinued testing but if you can come up with modifications I would be happy to continue.

John

Attached Images

Vol#2.gif (4.6 KB, 167 views)

Attached Files

Vol#2.htm (11.5 KB, 30 views)

Hi John,

Vol did pretty well on backtest for eur/usd but looking at your statement was something I didn't notice while testing, instead of the lotsize gradually building it is immediately on the next progression going from .10 lot to 1.00 lot on the next order, would be a good idea to stop testing until I can fix this problem.Trying to find formula for gradually increasing lotsize using ATR while pipstep is increased.


Regards
tools

Hey guys....

Forgive me for keep harping back to my backtesting of Mod1e, but I've been going through the results, line by line, tick by tick. I couldn't do a straight comparison, because my backtest washed out too soon. I've re-run the test, on Neuimex, starting a little later. This time, it didn't washout ... and there are disturbing similarities between the backtest and John's forward testing. You can see that after the initial losses, it did go on to show the gains that John saw. Had I started the test from trade #21, I would be singing its praises.

So, the question was ... Did that initial loss show in John's post? Well, yes it did, but it started the sequence 5 mins (3 pips) later. If you look at my backtest from item #9 2007.02.22 15:00 and compare it to John's item #2713571 2007.02.22 15:05

The difference, as I see it, is that my backtest hit the S/L at 1.9597 ... and closed trades #5-10 for a loss. John's did not have a S/L ... Why was that? Had it had a S/L, it would have triggered ... because that candle went up to 1.9600. Instead it hung in there .. and ultimately closed, for a profit, at 1.9559. That would seem to be luck ... What would have happened if the price kept rising?

So, maybe the backtesting is not as bad as we thought. If we could see why there's a difference on the S/L setting, we could make the backtesting more reliable.

Ultimately, if backtesting could become reliable ... think how much easier (and quicker) it would be to fine-tune the EAs.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Regards,

Ray.

Attached Images

Mod1e_Neuimex.gif (5.7 KB, 161 views)

Attached Files

Mod1e_Neuimex.htm (35.6 KB, 27 views)

Interesting. I was planning on testing with .05 lots to start. So now I'm not sure if AccountIsNomral should be 0 or 1.

the AccountisNormal1 setting works for .01 is taken from the post you quoted from and .01 would be the same as .05. If that doesn't work with the broker you select then try Accountis Normal2 but make sure that your broker accepts .05 trades.

Once the EA is attached to the chart and activated check your Experts and Journal tabs for any errors or comments. You can right click and select copy to post the message here for further help.

John