I think that the scoobs stuff is great, but let's remember something on forward testing.
a) Stop is 100pts, take profit is 25. This means you need 4x as many winners as losers to break even, in the absence of trading costs. I.e. a mininum of 80% win rate---probably higher just to break even. It's short volatility, not long volatility.
b) People's intuitive perception of a random process doesn't mesh with real fluctuations. True independent random results have more streaks than people intuitively think should be present in random---their personal idea of random is actually short-term anticorrelated.
c) the robot will lose on trend shifts. These are likely to happen in multiple currencies simultaneously because they come from related underlying factors. Similarly the winners will occur in streaks as well because (beyond the native 4:1 stop to tp) market behavior between fluctuations to sharp trends/jumps oscillate but with short-term persistence.
Conclusion: it will be take longer than you think to validate long-term profitability. A 75% win rate robot might still look great for a long time in periods and yet could be long term negative. I doubt this one is, but it may be good while before we're really confident in a scientific sense.
a) Stop is 100pts, take profit is 25. This means you need 4x as many winners as losers to break even, in the absence of trading costs. I.e. a mininum of 80% win rate---probably higher just to break even. It's short volatility, not long volatility.
b) People's intuitive perception of a random process doesn't mesh with real fluctuations. True independent random results have more streaks than people intuitively think should be present in random---their personal idea of random is actually short-term anticorrelated.
c) the robot will lose on trend shifts. These are likely to happen in multiple currencies simultaneously because they come from related underlying factors. Similarly the winners will occur in streaks as well because (beyond the native 4:1 stop to tp) market behavior between fluctuations to sharp trends/jumps oscillate but with short-term persistence.
Conclusion: it will be take longer than you think to validate long-term profitability. A 75% win rate robot might still look great for a long time in periods and yet could be long term negative. I doubt this one is, but it may be good while before we're really confident in a scientific sense.