Discussing the strategy VECTORIAL DAX (M5)

• 05/21/2020 at 2:21 PM #132599
  Paul

  @zilliq probably yes. Using long & short at the same time, each with in part optimised parameters and a big stoploss, have a greater chance of being more curvefitted? Long/short separate have its benefits. I’am testing both a.t.m.

  

  Paul

  Participant

  Topics: 40

  Replies: 812

  Been thanked: 660 times
  05/21/2020 at 3:15 PM #132618
  Balmora74

  @BobFlynn : i have best profit factor and less draw down with my ATR values. I found these values with the optimisation tools of PRT.

   

   

  

  Balmora74

  Participant

  Topics: 5

  Replies: 97

  Been thanked: 78 times
  05/22/2020 at 5:12 PM #132868
  Andrea.1981

  hi guys this is my optimization for version DJA 3 minutes only 1 contract long and short and small stop loss

  2 users thanked author for this post.

  Balmora74, GraHal

  

  Andrea.1981

  Participant

  Topics: 1

  Replies: 2

  Been thanked: 2 times
  05/23/2020 at 11:11 AM #132933
  Fran55

  The denominated vectorial “account destructor” for other persons, go Up again on backtest.

  This is the best bot un this forum, think.

  1 user thanked author for this post.

  Balmora74

  

  Fran55

  Participant

  Topics: 34

  Replies: 210

  Been thanked: 7 times
  05/24/2020 at 11:56 AM #133027
  Francesco

  Dear Fran, if you are referring to me and nonetheless, if we called it “account burner” it’s because after nice performances, suddenly they dropped into deep red. This, joint with a poor robustness test results led us to use the forum as what is intended to be used: a place to discuss strategies and take action to make them better, not a race for those who find the most performing system or who is better than the others.
  That said, I invite you not to use your tone of arrogance as you have done in the past, and respect both those who created the code and those who try to contribute to the community; also be grateful to the moderators who are very kind and still keep you here after numerous warnings.

  I go back to the sea, have a good day.

  5 users thanked author for this post.

  Paul, Balmora74, OboeOpt, fifi743, keewee

  

  Francesco

  Participant

  Topics: 32

  Replies: 439

  Been thanked: 200 times
  05/24/2020 at 1:03 PM #133051
  Paul

  @Fran55

  Yes it’s a very good bot. If you intend to sell or rent your modified code of the original vectorial dax using the marketplace, don’t forget to pay royalties to Balmora74 as he is the original creator!

  1 user thanked author for this post.

  Balmora74

  

  Paul

  Participant

  Topics: 40

  Replies: 812

  Been thanked: 660 times
  05/24/2020 at 2:10 PM #133062
  Fran55

  Really i think buy robots.

  

  Fran55

  Participant

  Topics: 34

  Replies: 210

  Been thanked: 7 times
  05/24/2020 at 2:12 PM #133064
  Fran55

  Sorry Francesco.

  

  Fran55

  Participant

  Topics: 34

  Replies: 210

  Been thanked: 7 times
  05/24/2020 at 2:13 PM #133065
  Fran55

  And sell bots Pablo.

  No Vectorials.

  

  Fran55

  Participant

  Topics: 34

  Replies: 210

  Been thanked: 7 times
  05/26/2020 at 4:43 PM #133342
  nonetheless

  @Andrea.1981, thanks for reviving the DJ 3m. Here’s another version using your vectorial values, I changed the hours and the stop, added @Paul’s ATR trail.

  WF is good, final values are from the last 70/30 period so showing good OOS performance before and after. Unfortunately robustness is rather poor though, I’m posting it anyway in case someone cleverer than me can find other improvements. Seems it ‘might’ have potential…

  3 users thanked author for this post.

  Andrea.1981, Balmora74, Scooby

  

  nonetheless

  Participant

  Topics: 83

  Replies: 1237

  Been thanked: 978 times
  05/27/2020 at 8:13 AM #133390
  zilliq

  Hi Guys,

  You have always the same error.

  Use this code

  ONCE PeriodeB = 29 ONCE nbChandelierB= 40 MMB = Exponentialaverage[PeriodeB](close) pente = (MMB-MMB[nbchandelierB]*pipsize) / nbchandelierB pentecorrecte=((MMB-MMB[nbchandelierB])*pipsize) / nbchandelierB return pente, pentecorrecte

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

  ONCE PeriodeB = 29 ONCE nbChandelierB= 40 MMB = Exponentialaverage[PeriodeB](close) pente = (MMB-MMB[nbchandelierB]*pipsize) / nbchandelierB   pentecorrecte=((MMB-MMB[nbchandelierB])*pipsize) / nbchandelierB   return pente, pentecorrecte

  And you will see that pente can NEVER be negative and so the CondBuy2 = (pente > trigger) AND (pente < 0) can’t be exist

  Cheers

  

  zilliq

  Participant

  Topics: 58

  Replies: 683

  Been thanked: 152 times
  05/27/2020 at 9:47 AM #133405
  nonetheless

  Hi @Zilliq, I assure you I have tried to incorporate your changes. In your message #130588 you suggested this:

  ADJASUROPPO = ((MMA-MMA[nbchandelierA])/pipsize) / nbChandelierA ANGLE = (ATAN(ADJASUROPPO)) trigger = exponentialaverage[PeriodeA+lag](ANGLE)

  1 2 3 4

  ADJASUROPPO = ((MMA-MMA[nbchandelierA])/pipsize) / nbChandelierA ANGLE = (ATAN(ADJASUROPPO)) trigger = exponentialaverage[PeriodeA+lag](ANGLE)

  Then in #130842 you suggested changing pente to:

  pente = ((MMB-MMB[nbchandelierB])/pipsize)/nbchandelierB

  1	pente = ((MMB-MMB[nbchandelierB])/pipsize)/nbchandelierB

  Now you seem to have changed your mind and want it to be

  pentecorrecte=((MMB-MMB[nbchandelierB])*pipsize) / nbchandelierB

  1	pentecorrecte=((MMB-MMB[nbchandelierB])*pipsize) / nbchandelierB

  This gets a wee bit confusing. If I make all your suggested changes the result is zero trades. If I change just pente to either of your preferred lines, the result is no change at all —identical to the original.

  Do please post a complete version of the code as you think it should be so we can test it, thanks for your input!

  3 users thanked author for this post.

  Paul, GraHal, Francesco

  

  nonetheless

  Participant

  Topics: 83

  Replies: 1237

  Been thanked: 978 times
  05/27/2020 at 1:18 PM #133438
  zilliq

  Sorry @ I write the post to fast, the first is the correct correction

  pente = ((MMB–MMB[nbchandelierB])/pipsize)/nbchandelierB

  not pentecorrecte=((MMB–MMB[nbchandelierB])*pipsize) / nbchandelierB

  But in your itf file there is still the error

  Cheers

  

  zilliq

  Participant

  Topics: 58

  Replies: 683

  Been thanked: 152 times
  05/27/2020 at 1:43 PM #133440
  nonetheless

  Thanks for that Zilliq. Maybe for you it is ‘technically’ an error … but it makes no difference to the results in back test. Exactly the same, your way or the original.

  

  nonetheless

  Participant

  Topics: 83

  Replies: 1237

  Been thanked: 978 times
  05/27/2020 at 2:04 PM #133445
  zilliq

  I don’t understand because in the cond2buy “pente” need to ne negative but with this “error” it never can be…Strange..

  

  zilliq

  Participant

  Topics: 58

  Replies: 683

  Been thanked: 152 times
• Author
  Posts