Advertisement
Forex Growth Bot
| 收益: | +2644.71% |
| 縮減 | 94.46% |
| 點: | 8075.5 |
| 交易 | 2881 |
| 贏得: |
|
| 損失:。 |
|
| 類型: | 真實 |
| 杠杆率: | 1:200 |
| 交易: | 自動的 |
Forex Growth Bot討論
May 25, 2013 at 08:12
I believe a successful trader should switch systems between time. Market changes all the time. No one system in the world will be profitable at any market condition. That's the reason why there r so many trading system going around. When a system won't work ( as the profit is going down month after month like fgb in year 2013). It's time to change.
會員從Mar 01, 2013開始
25帖子
May 25, 2013 at 16:14
for how long? which currency is to be traded? what to do with the eurusd drawdown?
May 25, 2013 at 17:17
(已編輯May 25, 2013 at 17:23)
its been god like in the start. but take a look at its performance for yr 2012 and 2013. its failing . and those who hope that it will bounce back. how are you so sure of that? because backtest told you so? wake up.. the choice is yours, continue to suck in more DD, or switch to a systems that works for current market condition. open a weekly or daily EURUSD chart and take a look. how the market look like in the pass and this 2 years. thats explain everything.
會員從Oct 05, 2012開始
38帖子
May 26, 2013 at 06:59
FGB is dead
May 27, 2013 at 10:13
Naw the problem is the sizing. It began with % risk that increased the lot size when its winning, decrease when its losing. Now its trading fixed size with many times the original positions without decreasing size. As anyone who's ever worked in a casino will tell you, using bigger positions after multiple losses than when you started is a common strategy to lose money.
As an example, even in 2012. It still had positive pip gain from the beginning to end of the year. In fact most investment funds underperformed as well because of lack of volatility that year. And if any of you were watching this account last year, Draghi did the same thing to FGB during his press conference too. Heck the loss in pure pips was even worse last time bc FOMC occurred right before that.
The only reason this latest drop is more dramatic is because it traded with bigger lots which resulted in bigger losses.
What you should learn from this experience is to switch off FGB when FOMC and eu rate decisions are approaching.
As an example, even in 2012. It still had positive pip gain from the beginning to end of the year. In fact most investment funds underperformed as well because of lack of volatility that year. And if any of you were watching this account last year, Draghi did the same thing to FGB during his press conference too. Heck the loss in pure pips was even worse last time bc FOMC occurred right before that.
The only reason this latest drop is more dramatic is because it traded with bigger lots which resulted in bigger losses.
What you should learn from this experience is to switch off FGB when FOMC and eu rate decisions are approaching.
會員從Oct 05, 2012開始
38帖子
May 27, 2013 at 13:48
unfortunately CPR only works on some humans; it does not work on strategies.
May 27, 2013 at 14:45
I wish FGB would automatically downsize when its account is at a certain level....regardless of the position sizing, I look at the number of pips gained in the long run and so far, FGB is still waaay ahead in pips gained since inception despite this horrible month..
May 28, 2013 at 08:43
Not bad overtime. At least a system with a higher avergae win than loss (most of the time other way around and risky MM, regardsless of winratio). But I don't like the big drawdowns.
We are concentrating on EURUSD to with our signal service. We want to achieve a stituation where the dd is lower than the monthly gain.. Then you have a superb system. Wish us luck, or in the mean time take a free trial! ;-)
Happy trading to everybody!
We are concentrating on EURUSD to with our signal service. We want to achieve a stituation where the dd is lower than the monthly gain.. Then you have a superb system. Wish us luck, or in the mean time take a free trial! ;-)
Happy trading to everybody!
May 28, 2013 at 21:43
I can see the draw down is getting uglier still than last time I noticed it at 40%. Now it is close to 50%. I see that most people talking here have given up on this EA, calling it dead. I think that is the right move.
Some few are hanging on through the torture and pain, even halving the lot sizing to die a little more slowly. My hat does go off to you few who are in this predicament. You have real faith -- undoubtedly bolstered by the 10 year backtests and 3 year forward tests. But no matter how long something is backtested and forward tested, the future holds that degree of surprise that can throw off the best of constructed EAs. It is a sad fact. This skepticism does not stop me from using EAs, but it does caution me against holding on to EAs in the face of new evidence showing the markets are no longer favorable for them.
Some few are hanging on through the torture and pain, even halving the lot sizing to die a little more slowly. My hat does go off to you few who are in this predicament. You have real faith -- undoubtedly bolstered by the 10 year backtests and 3 year forward tests. But no matter how long something is backtested and forward tested, the future holds that degree of surprise that can throw off the best of constructed EAs. It is a sad fact. This skepticism does not stop me from using EAs, but it does caution me against holding on to EAs in the face of new evidence showing the markets are no longer favorable for them.
會員從Oct 05, 2012開始
38帖子
May 29, 2013 at 10:29
the most important rule of automated trading; is knowing when a strategy is dead; versus when it is having a drawdown.
numerous studies dwell into this field; and the most common one is the monte carlo simulation.
In a nutshell; the rules says: "abandon the strategy if the real drawdown exceeds 2x historical drawdown".
example; if the historical drawdown is %15; then abandon the strategy when real drawdown reached %30.
In other words; would you really have traded this strategy; if the backtest show %50 drawdown? I don't think so.
so why are you holding to this strategy in real life; now that you know it is down %50?
Based on this real evidence; this strategy has been dead for a while :(
numerous studies dwell into this field; and the most common one is the monte carlo simulation.
In a nutshell; the rules says: "abandon the strategy if the real drawdown exceeds 2x historical drawdown".
example; if the historical drawdown is %15; then abandon the strategy when real drawdown reached %30.
In other words; would you really have traded this strategy; if the backtest show %50 drawdown? I don't think so.
so why are you holding to this strategy in real life; now that you know it is down %50?
Based on this real evidence; this strategy has been dead for a while :(
會員從Oct 28, 2009開始
1409帖子
May 29, 2013 at 10:39
That's a good point, I'm currently assessing my options. It's a hard one this. There is the chance that a good winning streak is just around the corner that will at least earn some of the losses back, or it could just keep losing.
I think the issue with this strategy now is that it's being shown how horrific the drawdowns can get when the market is against it.
I think if I had something solid to replace it with, then it would be in the bin by now.
Best regards Steve
I think the issue with this strategy now is that it's being shown how horrific the drawdowns can get when the market is against it.
I think if I had something solid to replace it with, then it would be in the bin by now.
Best regards Steve
會員從Oct 28, 2009開始
1409帖子
May 29, 2013 at 13:03
I might know someone selling a license, how much are you prepared to pay for it?
Best regards Steve
Best regards Steve
