[REQ]Probability EA 7.0

[satoru4944]

Please Share:)

Thank you

 

Official

http://www.probabilityea.com

 

Performance

http://jamesfranceprobability.mt4live.com/

[⭐ fxknight]

Funny name for this EA.. "Probability" that it will blow the account = 100.0%. Martingdale..

[hyperdimension]

Trade sizes are constant, so it is not Martingale. Do you mean "Grid"?

[⭐ fxknight]

Trade sizes are constant, so it is not Martingale. Do you mean "Grid"?

 

Yes sorry.. LaBouchere. Same destination ultimately ;)

[bratt]

fxknight, I must say my views are a 1oo% in line with yours regarding martingale or labouchere, still I am very "curious" when I see systems as of like this one:

hxxp://www.myfxbook.com/members/pc8multifx/xpipstrendmulti/15435

I have been following that guy's results for a while and even though he uses some kind of progressive positioning, many of his systems seem to not blowup. Don't you think that despite 99.9 % of progressive money management will bust accounts, it is still possible to have a system that can survive such a method? mods, if I am not allowed to post a link to the myfxbook account, please just remove the link. thanks. I don't advertise anything - just trying to debate the point of martingale vs safety.

thanks in advance, fxknight;-)

[⭐ fxknight]

fxknight, I must say my views are a 1oo% in line with yours regarding martingale or labouchere, still I am very "curious" when I see systems as of like this one:

hxxp://www.myfxbook.com/members/pc8multifx/xpipstrendmulti/15435

I have been following that guy's results for a while and even though he uses some kind of progressive positioning, many of his systems seem to not blowup. Don't you think that despite 99.9 % of progressive money management will bust accounts, it is still possible to have a system that can survive such a method? mods, if I am not allowed to post a link to the myfxbook account, please just remove the link. thanks. I don't advertise anything - just trying to debate the point of martingale vs safety.

thanks in advance, fxknight;-)

 

Hi bratt,

I have spoken and conducted in depth studies with some very brilliant math PhDs in economics and all of them without reservations concluded that a concept based on martindale, progression, labouchere is doomed to fail, the equation being just a matter of time unfolding itself. There are few ways to twart this expectancy which nobody employs since it makes the systems to be unprofitable.. adding tighter stoplosses on every trade, placing time limitations on every trade and of course risking only a certain percent of every trade cycle (like $1000 on a $10k account, once $1k lost that cycle is over). To my knowledge if any of the above are added to this kind of EA, the EA loses gradually and it eventually ends up blowing the account regardless. Its just slow bleeding death vs. sudden death. Same outcome in the end but dragged out. If you know of any EA based on these concepts that are performing just realize that this is a "time limited" performance. This is why these EAs are such a great marketing tool for these vendors because they show one month (or several) of +500% performance and everybody is interested in their product not realizing that all that they are getting ready to do is to jump off a high cliff.

 

Cheers

[pro]

Hi guys, since the above mentioned myfxbook link is mine, let me tell you these "brilliant math PhDs in economics " have no clue about sophisticated, full adaptive marty- like systems and in particular about multi currency trading with it. period.

 

It was the hard work of three addicted guys and it took more than three years of developing and testing to reach the goal...

 

Before u ask: sorry guys, our EAs get never published or sold, bc we trade managed accounts with them.

[bratt]

thanks pro and fxknight for answering.

Pro - I have no problem with that. If it's your EA I respect it. I was more after the general discussion about progressive money management. I guess the accounts speak for themselves.

Regards to you both.

[⭐ fxknight]

Hi guys, since the above mentioned myfxbook link is mine, let me tell you these "brilliant math PhDs in economics " have no clue about sophisticated, full adaptive marty- like systems and in particular about multi currency trading with it. period.

 

It was the hard work of three addicted guys and it took more than three years of developing and testing to reach the goal...

 

Before u ask: sorry guys, our EAs get never published or sold, bc we trade managed accounts with them.

 

I am not arguing with you and I dont believe the group would be interested in a Martingale EA even with an extensive track record. Just like the odds of Las Vegas, unfortunately the clock is ticking against you as long as you play. Good luck

[pro]

I am not arguing with you and I dont believe the group would be interested in a Martingale EA even with an extensive track record. Just like the odds of Las Vegas, unfortunately the clock is ticking against you as long as you play. Good luck

 

Its not a question of luck.. thx anyway

 

"Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open"

Albert Zweistein

[hyperdimension]

I have spoken and conducted in depth studies with some very brilliant math PhDs in economics and all of them without reservations concluded that a concept based on martindale, progression, labouchere is doomed to fail, the equation being just a matter of time unfolding itself.

I think Everything you wrote in that post is correct if we assume that the markets behave as a purely random walk, which I believe those mathematicians would have done. However if this assumption is correct, this means that trading itself cannot be a profitable endeavor over the long term, as every trade would be like tossing a coin. The additional loss of the Ask-Bid spread would run an account to the ground eventually.

 

But if we eradicate this random walk assumption and state that markets do have some statistically significant patterns of behavior that can be exploited, then trading can be profitable, and those mathematical models that are based on the random walk assumption can no longer be used. I think in this case martingale trade sizing can be profitable, and it would depend on whether the underlying strategy itself is profitable.

[Stormin_Norman]

its not a question of martingale or not for me, but having a maximum drawdown.

[guro]

Anyone with half a brain can see those results on MT4l have been doctored.

 

There is a 10 pip grid then all of a sudden when the markets tanking you have over 200 pip grid. Not so on his strategy testing reports.

[robbye67]

Open minds are one thing. Repeating the same mistakes as others and mathematics have proven is another. I try to learn from the mistakes of others. I's cheaper on the pocket and on the nerves.

[loulou69]

hi,

 

i want to share Probability EA http://www.forexsharing.com/89091

and the demo statement http://www.myfxbook.com/portfolio/bertrand2/30195

not very steaby EA

[⭐ pipmaster]

OK here is P EA 7.1.1 latest version which I purchased. Reason to upload is it's lost money since I bought it. So if a talented coder can do any modifications to it like a time filter and work out how it enters trades and determines trend direction. It seems to have potential but very unreliable. On 0.01 I've been running it and still makes losses on my larger account hit stop loss twice in the last 10 minutes for $7 each. So I'm uploading this but please can someone modify it and look at the code. As I've spent money to get this. http://www.multiupload.com/WL0KG8OYUB

[⭐ pipmaster]

Ok there is it with the manual http://www.multiupload.com/S435FPJUSS

[⭐ pipmaster]

One problem with this EA it's not consistent at all. Trying it on a couple of different accounts. Will open a buy on one and a sell on the other, which doesn't make any sense at all.

[⭐ musketeer]

Hi bratt,

I have spoken and conducted in depth studies with some very brilliant math PhDs in economics and all of them without reservations concluded that a concept based on martindale, progression, labouchere is doomed to fail, the equation being just a matter of time unfolding itself. There are few ways to twart this expectancy which nobody employs since it makes the systems to be unprofitable.. adding tighter stoplosses on every trade, placing time limitations on every trade and of course risking only a certain percent of every trade cycle (like $1000 on a $10k account, once $1k lost that cycle is over). To my knowledge if any of the above are added to this kind of EA, the EA loses gradually and it eventually ends up blowing the account regardless. Its just slow bleeding death vs. sudden death. Same outcome in the end but dragged out. If you know of any EA based on these concepts that are performing just realize that this is a "time limited" performance. This is why these EAs are such a great marketing tool for these vendors because they show one month (or several) of +500% performance and everybody is interested in their product not realizing that all that they are getting ready to do is to jump off a high cliff.

 

Cheers

 

fxknight, these PhDs must know that there is martingale with 100% safe - it is risking 0.05% with ROI about 10-20% per year... it is about *pure* martingale w/o any mods, mitigation, etc...

[⭐ musketeer]

Ok there is it with the manual http://www.multiupload.com/S435FPJUSS

 

how to hell to get it to trade?? :) using defaults it does not trade, changing "buyonly", "atprice"... still has not any diff...

 

edit: ah i see, the back test is disabled - funny :) cured already...

Edited September 24, 2010 by musketeer
ic

[⭐ pipmaster]

This EA seems to go great on the demo but the results on live aren't the same doesn't make sense. On 0.2 lots on the demo it's made probably $2000 this week. When ever I run it live on 0.02 it always seems to trade the wrong direction and hit the stop loss. Does seem like it could work but the trend direction and stop loss might need adjusting or something.

[manganate]

The Black Scholes Model for options and other derivatives is based on sound mathematics and uses Brownian motion. The mathematicians were indeed brilliant and they seemed to believe they were going to become billionaires. They did! However, a black swan interfered and made them lose it all. It appears that they were fooled by randomness.