{quote} NA comes from tickstory. But it's actually 99.90%, I experience the same output glitch with my tickstory Pro. Please read carefully as he already said he was backtesting using 99% tickdata If you knew a little about BT, the amount of ticks modeled on his BT should have rung a bell
check the 5 trades that are closed around 1.13930 . If spread was at that time 3 pips and my backtest calculates a normal spread of 1.2 than it's inaccurate as hell as that trade would not have been closed and there are many other occasions when spread or slippage are ruining a test. I am not saying that the EA does not do well or it's logic is flawed but backtesting is not forward test.
The EA does what you told him to do and does not know the deffinition of maybe.. Maybe later on those trades would have closed but maybe not so having a percentage of DD ex 29% and the actuall being maybe 59% or maybe 101% should raise questions.
If i set the spread to 2 pip it may be 4-5 at some time.
If i set to 5 although the normal spread offered by broker is 1.5 , i still may have 6-10 pip if market moves fast and what would have closed on demo would be still open on real.
How about this one?
Or this one.
Or this one ? Notice that i am using every tick and tickstory with current spread as default.
We can sit here and argue about the backtest being unreliable or continue on developing/ testing on something that has actual relevance to trading.
This is a cent account that i use for testing and my results so far for 4.3
I use 4 pairs and 5m timeframe
, that's what one of the approaches I was talking about, going to test this to exhaustion, but already have a live account running with conservative rules... good luck to all...
