Discussing the strategy VECTORIAL DAX (M5)

Forums › ProRealTime English forum › ProOrder support › Discussing the strategy VECTORIAL DAX (M5)

Viewing 15 posts - 766 through 780 (of 1,239 total)
1 2 3 4 5 … 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 … 79 80 81 82 83
  • 05/21/2020 at 2:21 PM #132599
    Paul

    @zilliq probably yes. Using long & short at the same time, each with in part optimised parameters and a big stoploss, have a greater chance of being more curvefitted? Long/short separate have its benefits. I’am testing both a.t.m.

    05/21/2020 at 3:15 PM #132618
    Balmora74

    @BobFlynn : i have best profit factor and less draw down with my ATR values. I found these values with the optimisation tools of PRT.

     

     

    05/22/2020 at 5:12 PM #132868
    Andrea.1981

    hi guys this is my optimization for version DJA 3 minutes only 1 contract long and short and small stop loss

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    avatar Balmora74, avatar GraHal
    05/23/2020 at 11:11 AM #132933
    Fran55

    The denominated vectorial “account destructor” for other persons, go Up again on backtest.

    This is the best bot un this forum, think.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    avatar Balmora74
    05/24/2020 at 11:56 AM #133027
    Francesco

    Dear Fran, if you are referring to me and nonetheless, if we called it “account burner” it’s because after nice performances, suddenly they dropped into deep red. This, joint with a poor robustness test results led us to use the forum as what is intended to be used: a place to discuss strategies and take action to make them better, not a race for those who find the most performing system or who is better than the others.
    That said, I invite you not to use your tone of arrogance as you have done in the past, and respect both those who created the code and those who try to contribute to the community; also be grateful to the moderators who are very kind and still keep you here after numerous warnings.

    I go back to the sea, have a good day.

    5 users thanked author for this post.
    avatar Paul, avatar Balmora74, avatar OboeOpt, avatar fifi743, avatar keewee
    05/24/2020 at 1:03 PM #133051
    Paul

    @Fran55

    Yes it’s a very good bot. If you intend to sell or rent your modified code of the original vectorial dax using the marketplace, don’t forget to pay royalties to Balmora74 as he is the original creator!

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    avatar Balmora74
    05/24/2020 at 2:10 PM #133062
    Fran55

    Really i think buy robots.

    05/24/2020 at 2:12 PM #133064
    Fran55

    Sorry Francesco.

    05/24/2020 at 2:13 PM #133065
    Fran55

    And sell bots Pablo.

    No Vectorials.

    05/26/2020 at 4:43 PM #133342
    nonetheless

    @Andrea.1981, thanks for reviving the DJ 3m. Here’s another version using your vectorial values, I changed the hours and the stop, added @Paul’s ATR trail.

    WF is good, final values are from the last 70/30 period so showing good OOS performance before and after. Unfortunately robustness is rather poor though, I’m posting it anyway in case someone cleverer than me can find other improvements. Seems it ‘might’ have potential…

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    avatar Andrea.1981, avatar Balmora74, avatar Scooby
    05/27/2020 at 8:13 AM #133390
    zilliq

    Hi Guys,

    You have always the same error.

    Use this code

    And you will see that pente can NEVER be negative and so the CondBuy2 = (pente > trigger) AND (pente < 0) can’t be exist

    Cheers

    05/27/2020 at 9:47 AM #133405
    nonetheless

    Hi @Zilliq, I assure you I have tried to incorporate your changes. In your message #130588 you suggested this:

    Then in #130842 you suggested changing pente to:

    Now you seem to have changed your mind and want it to be

    This gets a wee bit confusing. If I make all your suggested changes the result is zero trades. If I change just pente to either of your preferred lines, the result is no change at all —identical to the original.

    Do please post a complete version of the code as you think it should be so we can test it, thanks for your input!

    3 users thanked author for this post.
    avatar Paul, avatar GraHal, avatar Francesco
    05/27/2020 at 1:18 PM #133438
    zilliq

    Sorry @ I write the post to fast, the first is the correct correction

    pente = ((MMB–MMB[nbchandelierB])/pipsize)/nbchandelierB

    not pentecorrecte=((MMB–MMB[nbchandelierB])*pipsize) / nbchandelierB

    But in your itf file there is still the error

    Cheers

    05/27/2020 at 1:43 PM #133440
    nonetheless

    Thanks for that Zilliq. Maybe for you it is ‘technically’ an error … but it makes no difference to the results in back test. Exactly the same, your way or the original.

    05/27/2020 at 2:04 PM #133445
    zilliq

    I don’t understand because in the cond2buy “pente” need to ne negative but with this “error” it never can be…Strange..

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 766 through 780 (of 1,239 total)
1 2 3 4 5 … 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 … 79 80 81 82 83

Find exclusive trading pro-tools on ProRealCode Marketplace

Similar topics:
discuss the “late lunch strade dax40 strategy”
discussing the cac40 tuesday long strategy
display of dax we data on dax weekly chart
late lunch trade dax40 strategy
5m ustech 100 strategy
bollinger+fractal strategy idea
changes to weekly reversal fx strategy
classic macd 200ema strategy
coding of a trend following strategy with pullback counter
combining short/long strategies into 1 strategy issue

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