Forums ProRealTime English forum ProOrder support Machine Learning in ProOrder ProRealTime Reply To: Machine Learning in ProOrder ProRealTime

#128486

I played around with settings Paul and simplified the entry and exit and re-added Reset Period for better performance. I’ll check out your latest v4 TS tonight or tomorrow. Cheers for posting it!

Is Once ValueX and Once ValueY doing anything?

I also wonder with the fact that starting value =40 and max value = 50 how can the green graph show a ValueX and ValueY Boxsize to be smaller than that, at 20 and 10 respectively in this screenshot 1 below:?  The gap between that starting value and max value is the basis of the ML stepping through values to find the right ones.. unless from optimisations and experience you can narrow it down to 40 to 50 boxsize from the get go. (It seems, based on optimisations to be 10 and 20 for both the BoxSize and the Trailing Stop).

I wrote the above last night, didn’t get round to finishing more testing before commenting. Now I’ve spent the day testing and thinking about what are we really best suited to apply our ML code to?

Is 1 x ML better than 2 x ML? (Depends if it’s the Ehlers Univ Oscillator, in that case ML2 is better, but with Renko I think ML1 is better).

But, after tons of optimisations I keep seeing low Boxsizes of 10 or 20 and ditto for the Trailing Stop. Is that achievable in the Demo/Live environment?
If so what’s the point of setting the starting value at 100 and Max Value to 200 if the ML would do better at figuring out if it’s better to use 10 or 20 in increments of 5?
Hence Paul’s tight Settings values of 40 and 50 appear to perform better.

Note: testing with 100 for Boxsize and 100 for Trailing Stop and testing over very short Daily date ranges like Feb to April 2010, it doesn’t produce tbt warnings and the equity curves actually look more realistic: Renko TP ML1 ITF attached (set those values to Boxsize =10o and Trailing Stop =10o).

So… that just leaves the static “500” figure for Take Profit (TP) that I settled upon after lots of manual tests on different instruments like the Dow, £/$, Brent Crude etc.
Well what if you apply ML1 to the TP whilst fixing the Boxsize and Trailing Stop at 10 (or 20) each? Please see screenshot 2 – ignore bottom two equity curves.

Now obviously this was a fully intentioned tbt test, but judging by the smoothness of the equity curve just didn’t turn out to be a tbt test or give you a warning.
Sometimes, however, if you keep playing with the date ranges — and eventually get that tbt failure warning, and if you’re lucky the offending Renko box that caused the tbt test to fail is at the end of your test dates, and if you hit “close” instead of “launch non tbt” test — you’ll still get to see what the system can do.

The point is even with these fantasy results the win ratios, the gain/loss ratio and profits are far higher targeting ML1 on the TP value than anything else I’ve seen fantasy result of!

I also found that the Wend/While was better when ML1 was applied to the Stop Loss system but not always when using Wend/While on the TP system. Depends on the date ranges, if you set the dates to like £/$ Daily 02/03/ to present, the Wend While wins. If you set if to the last 5 months the without Wend/While system wins. So, is it worth applying ML to work out and switch between a system with Wend and While or without Wend and While, can that be done?

Right, that’s a lot to take in, but it’d be good to get peoples feedback and ideas. Cheers.