Menu
Sister Sites

Options

Bookmark Thread

First Page First Unread Last Page Last Post

Print Thread

Similar Threads

Show me your greatness and your trading system (EURUSD drop) 52 replies

If your System is profitable, "Please show your Trade Explorer" 25 replies

Show your best EA 313 replies

Show us your best fake Grail... 72 replies

System Addicts Anonymous 2 replies

Attachments: For EA Addicts Only: Show Us Your Best EA Results
Exit Attachments

For EA Addicts Only: Show Us Your Best EA Results

Quoting pt49
{quote} Problem with a $100 start is that you must have high leverage, which excludes your American readers who have a 50:1 ball n chain. I'm not a big risk taker these days, so the minimum account size I would start with is $1,000 and risk just .01 lot per trade.
50:1 to one is not really a problem. If an EA can't show potential at 50:1 it's definitely not going work at 100:1 or more. Plus, there are some U.K. arms of U.S. brokers who will take American customers and let them trade at 100:1.

In your case, 50:1 would still still suit you fine at 0.01 per $1000.
The EA is not mine.

Apparently it was created in some backroom and then used to scam traders out of their hard earned cash....lol
Quoting Pipologist
{quote} But the open trades, will either be profitable or close at a predetermined and premanaged stop right? As long as they are not open ended you should be safe. {quote}
I have it set to open a max of 12 trades, and if all 12 trades were to stop out before the next win, then the potential loss is about 25% of the account (25% drawdown potential).

It would certainly have to be a very extraordinary event at that.
In the days of old when sailors were bold, and seldom if ever contented.
  • Post #44
  • Quote
  • Edited at 3:11am Jul 21, 2013 2:07am | Edited at 3:11am
Quoting pt49
{quote} Wow... obviously a back test or maybe a forward test demo. If its this good in demo, you'd be a nutcase not to risk a couple hundred dollar live account.
I'm nuts either way. Ha!

I have a prior version of this EA live with slightly less leverage per trade, which is running pretty close to what was expected and what was indicated in backtesting. In fact, real, live trades are the same ones that show up in open trades in test mode. In other words, the algorithm is consistent with the data on any data be it backtested, or live and real, or backtested with demo forward.

As far as the current version goes, I stumbled into into it last week by first slightly altering the decision making algorithm and then running a non-genetic algorithm test that went through 2.9 million scenarios, then tested on demo and live data. After 2 days of 24/7 running a test, I had an idea regarding hybrid stop and take profit levels which I implemented which increased the profitability a bit more. Recently it started with real $.

The super test to me, real test, will be to see how this EA reacts with multiple brokers and multiple spreads on multiple accounts. Theoretically, a solid profitable EA should be profitable on any broker's platform and take the same signals at the same time or very near the same time. Many EAs especially indicator based EAs generate different signals on different brokers with mixed results, but since this is PA based, theoretically it should perform similarly taking spread into account even with different brokers. That's a completely different test maybe for future discussion.
  • Post #45
  • Quote
  • Edited at 2:28am Jul 21, 2013 2:11am | Edited at 2:28am
Quoting Gvc
The EA is not mine. Apparently it was created in some backroom and then used to scam traders out of their hard earned cash....lol
Well, I'm weary of EAs that post 100% wins over a significant period. Anything over 50 trades with a 100% win rate deserves to be scrutinized and anything with over a 70% win rate should have some discussion about money management and position sizing.

An EA has to account for losing trades, along with succession of losing trades.

Any "trader" who invested in that EA is not a "trader" but (can't think of a word I can post here).
Quoting Pipologist
{quote} Any "trader" who invested in that EA is not a "trader" but (can't think of a word I can post here).
"Fuckwit" comes to mind
In the days of old when sailors were bold, and seldom if ever contented.
Quoting pt49
{quote} I have it set to open a max of 12 trades, and if all 12 trades were to stop out before the next win, then the potential loss is about 25% of the account (25% drawdown potential). It would certainly have to be a very extraordinary event at that.
So basically you are saying that you would accept a 25% total loss to max principal at any given time. Obviously as one's equity increases, the tendency is to wish to protect the equity, but at what point would you be willing to take a higher loss for a potentially higher gain? I'm not talking about gambling. I'm talking about testing the same EA on another small or smaller account with higher lev?

It's just a philosophical question. Each trader has their own goals.

For example, I would risk 80% of $100 or even 80% of $1000, but not directly 80% of $10,000, unless that $10,000 was free and clear profit.

At $100,000, even if it was free and clear profit, I would not risk 80% of. I'm willing to risk 25% of $100,000.

At a $1,000,000 I'm only willing to risk about 10% total drawdown, which depending on the system can be still accomplished with a 2% maximum dd per trade. Where of course, with smaller starting equity amounts such as $100, $1000, or $10,000 I'm willing to risk much more per trade.

I have a much higher risk tolerance than most. Many would call me nuts. But there are crazier traders who do not trade with a safety net.
Quoting Pipologist
{quote} So basically you are saying that you would accept a 25% total loss to max principal at any given time. Obviously as one's equity increases, the tendency is to wish to protect the equity, but at what point would you be willing to take a higher loss for a potentially higher gain? I'm not talking about gambling. I'm talking about testing the same EA on another small or smaller account with higher lev? It's just a philosophical question. Each trader has their own goals. For example, I would risk 80% of $100 or even 80% of $1000, but not directly...

Well, if I had a job (a safety net) I'd take a lot more risk, but I'm a retired old fart living off the old-age pension, and paying rent... there's not much week left at the end of my money.

This is something to pass the time instead of watching TV or playing with myself. My other money making/saving hobbies include brewing my own beer, cider and distilling my own spirits.


As my account grows I'll likely reduce my risk further.

I am tempted to open a small high leveraged account and go for broke tho... there is a broker in NZ that offers 2000:1 on a max $500 account.
In the days of old when sailors were bold, and seldom if ever contented.
Incidently... for anyone wanting to save money to open a live account, if you are a drinker, learn to make your own booze and bank the money you save. I save about $50 a week by making my own poison.
In the days of old when sailors were bold, and seldom if ever contented.
Quoting pt49
{quote} Well, if I had a job (a safety net) I'd take a lot more risk, but I'm a retired old fart living off the old-age pension, and paying rent... there's not much week left at the end of my money. This is something to pass the time instead of watching TV or playing with myself. My other money making/saving hobbies include brewing my own beer, cider and distilling my own spirits. As my account grows I'll likely reduce my risk further. I am tempted to open a small high leveraged account and go for broke tho... there is a broker in NZ that offers...
2000:1 reeks of scam broker. But even if they were legit, it's not sustainable, what happens when your account gets to $5000 or $50,000. No real broker in the world will give you even 500:1 on a $50k account.

I see your account this way...I'm not saying you should change your leverage on your account. Just tossing around another possibility on another more speculative account, without sacrificing your current scenario, which I wouldn't ever, since there is no need to.

I think I remember you saying that you're trading .01 lot for each $1000 with 12 max open trades and calculating stop levels, a max dd of 25% "worst case". Simple linear math will say .02 per $1000 equals 50% risk, and .03 per $1000 equals 75% risk. Of course more risk equals more volatile equity swings. But with equity based position sizing you could potentially gain much more than a 3x gain but with 3x risk. One potential problem is that with 12 max open positions at .03 your exposure at any given time would probably be more than your broker's stop out level, so your positions could get closed out before your stops are naturally hit, so .02 per $1000 would be the next logical size to test if you have not tested it already.

At .02 per thousand, at even 50:1 max leverage, you're looking at *about* $30 per .01 x 12 positions required which would be about $720 in equity ($750 to be conservative) required to trade it (50:1 leverage, about $30 per .01, .02 per position, 12 open positions, so 12 x $60 margin required). Of course if ALL positions get stopped out as you mentioned you're looking at a 50% immediate dd or $360 in equity in which case your EA will revert to .01 per position. It's just food for thought. Obviously you have some sort of MM algorithm either coded or manually inputted into your EA so experimenting with different levels should yield an alternate potentially acceptable speculative overall risk vs. overall reward scenarios for another account for you.

In any case, my point is that it does not require you to go to different higher leverage broker to accomplish your idea. You could do it with your same broker if they offer sub accounts or with an alternate broker that offers realistic and reasonable leverage levels.

In fact with your current position sizing and the one discussed above they can be accomplished at 50:1 quite easily, and at 50:1 you are still protecting yourself from potentially massive damage in case of unforeseen and unaccounted for events. Of course with about $1500 in starting equity you could even trade *your system* with a max leverage of 25:1 which is even safer. Food for thought.

[ Note for thread: I say *his system* because MM should be dynamic and appropriate for each person's risk tolerance, starting capital, and characteristics of their trading system or method and overall trading goals appropriate to the system or total risk capital committed. This thread is starting to become a Money Management thread, and I'd like to keep it a "Super Profitable EA" thread instead ]
Quoting pt49
Incidently... for anyone wanting to save money to open a live account, if you are a drinker, learn to make your own booze and bank the money you save. I save about $50 a week by making my own poison.
Sounds interesting that will be another thread or a personal discussion on the types of elixirs and how you make them.
Quoting Pipologist
{quote} 2000:1 reeks of scam broker. But even if they were legit, it's not sustainable, what happens when your account gets to $5000 or $50,000.
The broker is Exness, Russian owned I believe. I think once an account reaches $500 the leverage reduces to 1000:1 then as it gets higher the leverage reduces further. The only advantage I see is the ability to start trading with 1 cent micro trades rather than 10 cent mini trades. It would give a trader the ability to trade an account as small as say $50.
Quote
. This thread is starting to become a Money Management thread, and I'd like to keep it a "Super Profitable EA" thread instead
In my opinion MM is what makes a method, EA or otherwise, super profitable.

As for making booze, search Google for "home distiller"
In the days of old when sailors were bold, and seldom if ever contented.
Quoting pt49
{quote} The broker is Exness, Russian owned I believe. I think once an account reaches $500 the leverage reduces to 1000:1 then as it gets higher the leverage reduces further. The only advantage I see is the ability to start trading with 1 cent micro trades rather than 10 cent mini trades. It would give a trader the ability to trade an account as small as say $50. {quote} In my opinion MM is what makes a method, EA or otherwise, super profitable. As for making booze, search Google for "home distiller"
Even if your EA could effective trade profitably with super high leverage say 500 or 1000:1 .... Even if you are able to protect against massive leveraged losses, you would still have to either manually adjust or program an algorithm to adjust the leverage per trade according to balance/equity. The potential problem occurs at the crossover points, since you are trading multiple positions at one time, you would have some trades trading at 2 or 3 times more leverage than others at around the same time period which would create massive equity curve volatility more than what would be expected than with predetermined leverage. There are people doing it, but I prefer a consistent as possible equity curve, which is difficult enough to consistently maintain without having max leverage change.
I'm with you there... I'll do it with a sub account at Axi I think.
In the days of old when sailors were bold, and seldom if ever contented.
Alright. Sunday night. Back to work. Get ready for an interesting week. Back next week if I can.
Quoting Pipologist
And to start this off... My most recent EA: Results from 05/16/2013 to 7/18/2013 (2 months) $100 --> $573,000 Open Prices modeling was used because my EA specifically trades on bar opening. The results are 99.9% similar for control points used and for every tick method used. {image}
question is can this be done live?
  • Post #57
  • Quote
  • Last Post: Apr 23, 2016 9:28am Apr 23, 2016 9:28am
Thought I'd wake this thread up again.

Just finished working on a new concept. Even though the results are based on 500:1 and broker stop out of 20%, I thought I'd put it up here.

Please no PMs asking me about it from strangers. Not for sale and not available for testing.

Latest iteration:
*no martingale, uses equity based position sizing
*no indies on main entry
*1 common indi for secondary entry filter
*very aggressive MM that can be modified for lower risk appetite, but back test posted is at near max risk profile
*no weekend holds, unless I screw up on holidays
*no overnight holds unless swap is positive
*entry algo is proprietary
*currently set at a max of 7 trades in either direction (max 14 open positions)
*uses hard tp and sl, but exit algos will usually exit before either is hit.

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: Untitled-3.png Size: 71 KB
0 traders viewing now