Is this EA worth to try?

Is this EA worth to try?
Hi

I did a simple math for it.

If I open a new son account after each mother account grown up to twice. If n is the first mother account final total net profit divided by initial deposit.

Am I getting 2^n profit finally?

Well, why dont you do a forward test on a demo and evaluate after some weeks? What is the buy/sell logic of the EA? You could post the EA here, and others could give it a try as well.

LOL

'Is this EA worth a try?'

..... And all you show us Is an ascending equity curve.

Based on what we can see YES....... But im sure you already antisipated that answer.

We need more information to draw a proper conclusion.

The relative drawdown of this EA is much too high. You need to optimize the settings or re-code parts of it. The relative drawdown is giving the best (clearest) picture, if you compound and do not test with a rock solid lotsize. But even for that the RDD should be not higher than 15%. Really good is >10%.
You still need, as stated by WHTenn, give more facts about the EA and its features. But from your test I would not let it come close to any of my real accounts! :
Let us see some more of your cards! Maybe we can help you!

Ciao
Gnat

Looks like a good EA to me! Forward test on a micro account to be sure. (dont bet real money until you see how it deals with spreads, requotes, etc)

I don't understand the mother-son accounts and the lotsize changes. But, the bottomline is that it would have converted every $1000 to 4750 (just 475 %) in 8 years (with a >30% risk at any moment). For that risk-reward, one can do better in the stock market.

chandra

Thanks for all your reply. Very useful!

I will try to optimize the EA for better RDD.

I think keep low RDD and good profit is impossible mission to me.

It looks like a martingale strategy. Is it using a negative progression position sizing?

yes.

Well of course the only real problem with the negative progression is, who has more capital, you or the market you are trading. You see you will hit a bad patch at some time and the risk will escalate exponentially compared to the locked reward. Of course that may not be a problem if your initial lots size is small enough that you could weather the largest negative progression.

I would go through all of the detail of trades and see what your largest progression was and then adjust the position size to fit within your capital account, if you must use a MG method.

Of course the R:R is not good, but who cares if you are making money.

I personally am not fond of negative progression, because you never know when the Black Swan will come. ( Fooled By Randomness, Nasim Teleb)

Another option is to set a limit on the negative progress, so you can have a larger position size. The draw back of this is that you will have larger losses and they may not be compensated for.

Also note, a test with the neagtive progression really prevents you from seeing what the true win rate is and what your Profit factor is. and your percent of wins and losses are. You would be wise to run the EA without the MG to find out if your method is better than 50%.

Martingale is a MM approach. and no amount of MM can over come a negative expectancy.

Really appreciate your suggestion.

If I have your email I would like to send full back test result to you.

I sent you a PM. You probably cannot PM me back, because your post count is too low.

Hi Gnat,

I am also new here and don't fully understand the implications of the relative drawdown. I have been live trading an EA for the last 40 days that has a high relative drawdown. I can't PM you since I haven't posted enough, but if you sent me your e-mail I can send you over the data and more info about the EA. Thanks.