Information
| Username: | thomas.gardling |
| Member since: | 12 May 2016 |
| Last login: | 12 May 2016 |
| Status: | Active |
Activity
| Where | Created | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Algorithms | 0 | 19 |
| Forum Topics | 1 | 3 |
| Jobs | 0 | 0 |
Last Algorithm Comments
You are the one that wrote regular lot, I quote "since this test is not weighted the risks is trading a regular lot and 1000 Deposit". I got this to be a standard lot, if not then its my mistake.
So you are saying that this has not been tested live yet? Then please open a live account and connect it to myfxbook, so all here can see that it works as you state it does.
Just looking out for the small guys that believe in getting rich quick here, if that were through then there would be atleast 1000 billionares here on this forum.
Volume constant yes, but the drawdown isnt. You only get max equity drawdown in the test, try starting your system before a known drawdown period with $1000 and trading a standard lot. As you can curvfit a backtest to look better, you can also do the same to show the worse.
With the results you show, I dont really understand why you arent a billionare yet with a profit factor over 21000 and a max equity drawdown of 15%.
Im guessing the average win of $0.66 says it all when trading a standard lot. Slippage and requotes in the real world will kill it, not to talk about feed loss and minor currency crashes.
Show us a live account that has survived over 1 year with a smaller drawdown than the initial deposit.
Sadly some developers are really not interested in anything else then sell their product, even if the strategy doesnt work. Like throwing candy on a dogshit and calling it a cake, then convincing people to buy it.
Take a look at the backtest chart above, between trade 11000 and 13000 there is a drowdown of 4000$. Starting with 1000$ as they have in their test, but at that time instead you would have blown the account. It happens a couple of other times too during their test.
By adding equity based lots instead you will get a more correct backtest, risking the same amount on every trade according to what you have in your account. This way, the cBot in question wouldent even survive a month or two.
That said, backtest cant really prove anything more then past performance anyway.
Why? You dont want everybody here to see the strategys weakness?
Add equitybased lots, else the backtest isnt reliable.
Been a month, surely the Bot must have gained a substantial sum on the live account that you promised to show us.