Ha ha, the “joys” of non verbal communication 😀 What is your concern with cross referencing?

If HAlgo 3, as you call the ML3 system is nothing but HAlgo2/ML2 but with an added Bandedge optimisation too — as described above and which can be seen by looking at the code and seeing the extra ValueZ (bandedge) optimisaton — the coffee example/image is still showing what happens when you set these two systems in a race with each other. ML2 wins. The outcome of ML2 and ML 3 are still independent.

Below, right I get you.
Three algos in one system… I just got really curious to see what would happen! I’d already read Juanj’s comment about optimising two variables and the  potential issue of the algo not being able to determine which one (ValueX or ValueY) is causing the performance increase or decrease: (I copied and pasted all the best points from this thread into a text edit page, it makes getting to grips with the code easier if you can just scroll up and down fast using the highlight tool for bits of code or ideas/phrases like “cyclelimit”).

Francesco asked: “Could this be applied to more then a value in the same system?”

 Juanj replied: “Depends on what you mean. If it is the same target variable just used in different sections of the code then yes else no. The reason being that if you apply it to 2 or more different variables the algorithm will not be able to tell which one is causing the performance increase or decrease. I have experimented with literally duplicating the algorithm (slightly changing the name of each variable in the algorithm) and assigning it’s output to a second variable. And although this works to some extent it definitely reduces the accuracy and efficacy of the algorithm for the same reasons mentioned above.’

https://www.prorealcode.com/topic/machine-learning-in-proorder/page/2/#post-121090

Juan: “The HeuristicsCycleLimit parameter will determine how many ‘cycles’ each algorithm gets. “ and… “Best is to code it so that each algo gets it’s own evaluation period. Although it would require at least 2 evaluation periods to really know if performance is increasing or decreasing. So perhaps an additional ‘wait counter’ should be built into the strategy giving each algo 2 or more evaluation periods before giving the next algo a turn.”

https://www.prorealcode.com/topic/machine-learning-in-proorder/page/2/#post-121129

“We try and get ‘JuanJ Heuristic Cycle Limit’ code working in Systems using 2 or more HAlgos??“

It kind of already is, there is ValueX, ValueY and now ValueZ all in within one ML3 system (I put all the settings for each at the top of the code). It may not be optimal, but it does appear to be increasing performance, unless it’s coffee, which worked better with ML2, (the system with two algos, ValueX and ValueY for long and short entry)… which is why I thought why not have ML2 system and ML3 system, (with it’s long (ValueX) and short (ValueY) + Bandedge (ValueZ)) “fight it out” under one roof (in a new system). 

My question is how to now code ML2 and ML3 – two formerly separate systems, one which just optimised the long and short entries and the other that did that and also the bandedge setting – to have them now housed under one roof and use the heuristiccyclelimit to let those two (soon to be, if we can code it) sub-systems compete with each other? 

Do you or anyone else have any ideas how to code that heuristiccyclelimit for this to work under “one roof?”