Machine Learning in ProOrder ProRealTime

Forums ProRealTime English forum ProOrder support Machine Learning in ProOrder ProRealTime

Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 455 total)
  • #127227

    Sorry for the Mission Drift – I actually thought we were in the Pure Renko strategy  thread…

    #127232

    It is selected in the screenshot. If you’re seeing that unselected somewhere else, it was probably 2am…

    Maybe you did a lot of tests and posting of results at 2 am (?) because to reproduce your results on coffee I have to disable tick by tick mode.

    However, the Daily TF on DJI (I think?) that I posted was with tick by tick enabled.

    We need to get the bottom of this anyway … I’m glad a few of us are now looking at it!? 🙂

    Vonasi’s keeping quiet, now I know why … he’s already bought his new yacht complete with onboard tropical island!!!! 🙂

     

    #127235

    Attached is what I get on coffee with tick by tick enabled … too much caffeine for me .. I’ll never sleep!! 🙂

     

    #127240

    Forgot to click on tick by tick before-done that… even with daily bars this is a problem.

    #127244

    Thanks for clarifying @Nonetheless. In your opinion, because I have not read through all of that forum thread, was that a mistake using version 1 because v2 performed better than the very first Renko algo?
    I actually couldn’t get v1 to work on the 1 minute TF, hence me thinking maybe it was meant to be 1 month (which I never usually backtest on) and then discovering it worked really well with that TF, I decided to add the ML code to see what would happen… the rest, as they say is a “happy accident.”

    #127245

    I’ve been going back through Juanj’s original code carefully: https://www.prorealcode.com/topic/machine-learning-in-proorder/page/3/#post-121130

    Is line 166 and 169 (now lines 2 and 5) correct?

    Perhaps a little mistake, because surely it should read “(i2)” not (i), right? :

     

    #127247

    ** and should countofposition also be “(i2)?”

    #127249

    was that a mistake using version 1

    The subsequent versions were far more sophisticated, for sure, and some have ML applied, for example #126632

    1m in the original was def 1 minute but I never kept it on forward testing for that long. @Grahal had a lot of success with it

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #127250

    then discovering it worked really well

    Glad you did!

    I’ve often found new and better ways through life by doing something wrong in the first place! 🙂

    Perhaps a little mistake, because surely it should read “(i2)” not (i), right? :

    I agree! well spotted!

    Also the 100000 should read Close or a value related to the Price of instrument under test.

     

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #127259

    Thanks very much for the clarification @Nonetheless. Do you know what the “ha” stands for in front of the high in Renko3?
    So that’s 2 more  different versions to test and apply ML1 and ML2 too. I’m going to be here for years…

    #127260

    Sorry for the Mission Drift..

    I’m just waiting for my brother to tell me it’s okay, that I can leave my computer…

    #127261

    ** and should countofposition also be “(i2)?”

    Yes I would say so.

    It’s a pity @Juanj hasn’t dropped by for a while? He also may be working with these errors.

    One way I noticed errors early on in my trialling the HAlgos is … I used Halgo2 as stand alone / on it’s own  in a System. When I tried to backtest it told me about 3 or 4 variables were not defined. I then realised that HAlgo2 had been using values from HAlgo1.

    You could try above as a check on your HAlgo2 and also HAlgo3.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #127265

    what the “ha” stands for

    HA = heikin ashi, an alternative Japanese candle-type

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #127268

    It’s giving me the same kind of results (in the millions with 30x capital). In fact it seems to have picked up a “spare £13 million”… Not sure @GraHal, is anyone else able to replicate these results?
    Maybe there is a caching issue and even though it shows tick by tick it’s not doing tick by tick, although I have started a fresh session in PRT this morning and get the same high results.
    Maybe the other day I had other backtests running in the same chart and when I changed the TF of coffee it would show me a warning saying that tick by tick wasn’t available for the date range for another system (and I did click for it to test the new TF without tick by tick, but perhaps it was also unticking my Renko ML1 StpLoss system, (although it’s not visually removing my tick in the tick by tick backtest box)?

    Here’s the code instead of the itf: The only change is with:

    where I replaced 100,000 with Close. Oddly no difference in profit on Coffee although it did make a big difference when I made that change for the Ehlers’ Univ Osc ML2 system with coffee?

     

     

    #127273

    Maybe Vonasi’s hard to reach because he bought a nuclear sub instead!? 😀

    1 user thanked author for this post.
Viewing 15 posts - 181 through 195 (of 455 total)

Create your free account now and post your request to benefit from the help of the community
Register or Login