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

#128741

That’s a bunch of time wasted. Knew there was something off but not exactly what. At least v4 ts had this covered.

I never look at this as wasted effort, because all the time I’m working on these systems (even with an unrealistic trailing stop), I’m constantly still thinking of new ideas to try out and develop.

Re: Renko ML2 1Month v4 ts (Trailing Stop). That was a such a great idea on coming up with the ML2 Boxsize L/S concept. Really smart, because I’ve been testing/experimenting Boxsize L/S v4 ts against ML1’s for Long and Short boxsizes governed by just ValueX, against ML1’s just for either boxsize or ML1’s on the take profit number and your ML2 Boxsize L/S performs far better.

I wondered though, how does it know if it should use percentage or points for stops, what determines that switch?

I did play around with the sophisticated ts settings, doing optimisations and manually changing figures. I tried different percentages for ts1, 2 and 3 but couldn’t get profit to vary. My thought is that the system maybe needs to be really allowed to “breath“ and make out like a bandit whenever possible rather than being restricted with a smart plan to tighten the ts when the profits climb to squeeze more profit out of the position. I then replaced the ts code with the standard TP at 500 and the new pLoss at 50 (now that we know trailing stops are pointless with tbt tests) and it performs even better. About another £10k better on the Nikkei Ap2018-2020. Please see image.

Can we trust “pLOSS 50” being respected properly by tbt test though? Seems to be throwing up far less tbt warnings, most of those being triggered by edits to settings 1 & 2.

Tomorrow I am going to see if I can get an ML3 working, so far not, maybe because of the wrong cycle heuristic code. But I noticed with the Ehlers Oscillators with an attempted ML3 system (2 correctly working ML’s and the third not being factored into the profit performance), that it produced better profits when the 3rd albeit not fully working ML3 was added compared to the ML2 version (x for long entry threshold and y for short entry).