No one can say "no" unless he/she knows every strategy out there. So yes off course! IMO it depends on what kind of strategy you are using: I don't trust chart patterns, only indicators based on moving averages 
No one can say "no" unless he/she knows every strategy out there. So yes off course! IMO it depends on what kind of strategy you are using: I don't trust chart patterns, only indicators based on moving averages
I'm not saying that indicators do not work in forex,
but, everybody knows, that most of the indicators were designed for stocks, therefore everybody knows, that stock are "moved" by MM's and mortals like me and you, so stock indicators give us "psychological information" and everybody is doing the same, for example, if indicator "A" shows, that market is overbought, than most of the traders go short and vice versa.
since forex is moved by Economy and not by traders (well, may be some of those ticks are because of BSD's) do you think that indicators might give us some really worthy information? Like : if RSI is below 20 level, than it's more likely to go long. WHY THE HELL? nobody cares where the RSI is, seriously...
while you are not looking for simple statistical entry point, I think that using indicators in forex is really useless.
I'm not arguing, just sharing opinion.
Best regards and green pips to you.
Stay Hungry Stay Foolish
- #23
- Edited Apr 21, 2015 4:04am Apr 20, 2015 1:45pm | Edited Apr 21, 2015 4:04am
- Joined Apr 2015 | Status: Trader | 1,756 Posts
{quote} I'm not saying that indicators do not work in forex, but, everybody knows, that most of the indicators were designed for stocks, therefore everybody knows, that stock are "moved" by MM's and mortals like me and you, so stock indicators give us "psychological information" and everybody is doing the same, for example, if indicator "A" shows, that market is overbought, than most of the traders go short and vice versa. since forex is moved by Economy and not by traders (well, may be some of those ticks are because of BSD's) do you think that...
Actually stocastic systems can be used to predict many things: from long term weather to population growth.... I use it in forex trading and it works
Lol it's not about "moving the price", rather "trying" to predict its behavior, using statistical data.
Now obviously, if you take all the strategies out there, run hundred of backtests, combine them with others and backtest again... try different SL/TP/timeframes. Even if you do this every day, it can take YEARS to get a grasp.
P.s. exuse me if my English isn't perfect.
If I practice a strategy using Forex Tester, then would this still be considered "back testing" ? This is the only way it's possible to "forward test" a strategy. Can I assume that real market conditions are mimicked and therefore it gives experiance in a shorter time? I understand that the psychology of having real money on the line is not experiance. Thanks for your responces, Yana
{quote} Backtesting should be used only to confirm that the stretegy is trading as per the rules ... Never to check its profitability.
what ever it takes
- #35
- May 22, 2015 4:40am May 22, 2015 4:40am
- | Commercial User | Joined Aug 2011 | 2,409 Posts
X-man the legendary conqueror of markets
Hello to all of you, it's my first post in this forum 
I understand that while backtesting, you have to consider changes in spread and that all ticks are only simulated... But when testing a strategy based on logical rules, with good tick data and opening only a few orders each week/month, why should the results differ much from real life?
I mean, if you have no technical errors and never interfere with your program, then the results should be similar to the tests. The more orders, the bigger could be the difference.
I have that opinion because of my own experience and it also seems logical to me. Isn't backtesting one of the most important parts in developing a working strategy? If so, then it must be somehow accurate (or it would be worthless).
Regards,
Timniko
I understand that while backtesting, you have to consider changes in spread and that all ticks are only simulated... But when testing a strategy based on logical rules, with good tick data and opening only a few orders each week/month, why should the results differ much from real life?
I mean, if you have no technical errors and never interfere with your program, then the results should be similar to the tests. The more orders, the bigger could be the difference.
I have that opinion because of my own experience and it also seems logical to me. Isn't backtesting one of the most important parts in developing a working strategy? If so, then it must be somehow accurate (or it would be worthless).
Regards,
Timniko
