Jump to content

atto

⭐ V.I.P.
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by atto

  1. hitescape, that was the EA that was posted here, I did not develop it. I was simply showing how the tester didn't work.

     

    I am moving this strategy to Matlab to do further testing and analysis. The current EA is horribly inefficient. Additionally, there are other elements to this strategy that are not in any indicator or EA here. Refer to the original system for those.

  2. Okay, this is what I mean. When you use the indicator, it records the time of the bar that the signal was generated on. So, if the signal was on at the close of the bar, it gets recorded (that's how MetaTrader backfills the signal, using close data only). However, the EA tester loads the times, and places the entry at the OPEN of the bar. This is a problem, because since this is a trend system, the open is almost always a better fill than the close.

     

    To illustrate my point, I changed the EA to initiate the order at the open of the next bar (which is generally within a pip of the close of the previous). Here are the two equity curves on Eur/Usd from mid January this year: http://i.imgur.com/OSupK.png

     

    Biiiiig difference (which is completely expected). So no, the EA is not as good as the backtest indicates. Yes, it looks like it still might be profitable, but we still have work to do.

  3. If I understand how the tester works, I'm pretty sure I did it correctly. Saved a .log of the signals from the Lindencourt indicator (the one you modified to do the log), and then ran a backtest with that. Put my indicator on, and it did not match up.

     

    Any thoughts about the fill issue I mentioned above? I think you're grabbing a completely unrealistic fill. What would be better is entering on the open of the NEXT bar, after the signal.

  4. I coded the original indicator. Could you explain why you are using a tester like you did? It seems it would better to just backtest like normal, instead of logging entries and then loading them into the EA. Also, there might be a problem with the tester approach, because the indicator is recording a buy/sell on the close, but you're usually getting the opening price as a fill in the EA (this would account for a very large discrepancy). Am I incorrect here?

     

    For some reason it wasn't making any trades for me if I didn't use the tester (any idea why?). If I did, upon visually examining the trades, they don't seem to be consistent with the indicator completely. Try backtesting it with the visual option on, and when it's done, drag the Lindencourt indicator on the chart. For me, they were different (the indicator was making many more signals).

     

    edit: Ah, I just saw that you thought backtesting was too slow. Hm. If anything, make SURE you're getting an accurate entry price. If anything, instead of entering at the ask/bid, enter at the worst possible fill for that bar (which is probably pretty accurate, since in trend systems, the close is usually in the direction of the trade). If it's STILL profitable, you have something great on your hands.

  5. I am fairly confident that this indicator correctly implements the non-discretionary rules for the Lindencourt FX system. However, please learn the actual system before trading this, as it's not completely mechanical.

     

    hxxp://filevo.com/rm6se6eqqxsq.html

     

    The only main configuration option available lets you decide if you want the buy/sell signal to be painted once per signal (default), OR repeated as long as the conditions are true. The signal is reset if price closes on the other side of the 21 EMA (so you could enter a later pullback).

×
×
  • Create New...