Reklāma
FRWC - Fusion V - Alpari (By stevetrade)
Lietotājs ir dzēsis šo sistēmu.
Diskusija
Biedrs kopš
95 ieraksti
Feb 27, 2010 at 22:08
zornjaso posted:
Maybe I am being overly simplistic here, but is it really so hard to just set it to MM off, .01 or .02 per $1,000 invested, and let it trade reasonably? If you do that, you dont have to know what LRR is (or, at the least, you can learn about it without haphazardly applying it to your accounts, ESPECIALLY if they are real-money ones). Fixed lots of .01-.02 per $1,000 of equity is safe and profitable trading.
Seriously?
Biedrs kopš
16 ieraksti
Feb 27, 2010 at 22:31
(labots Feb 27, 2010 at 22:37)
Seriously, Clearpaper. The ONLY time I have had unforgivable losses when trading Forex, manually or with robots, has been when I have violated that rule. Perhaps others have ways of doing it better, but that has been my experience.
Seriously.
P.S. Clarification: .01 - .02 per $1,000 -- PER INDIVIDUAL TRADE! ... In some cases you have have several trades open, each at .01 - .02 (resulting in a total of more than .01 - .02 per $1,000. I hope that is clear.) I meant PER INDIVIDUAL TRADE EXECUTED.
Seriously.
P.S. Clarification: .01 - .02 per $1,000 -- PER INDIVIDUAL TRADE! ... In some cases you have have several trades open, each at .01 - .02 (resulting in a total of more than .01 - .02 per $1,000. I hope that is clear.) I meant PER INDIVIDUAL TRADE EXECUTED.
Biedrs kopš
95 ieraksti
Feb 27, 2010 at 22:45
zornjaso posted:
Maybe I am being overly simplistic here, but is it really so hard to just set it to MM off, .01 or .02 per $1,000 invested, and let it trade reasonably? If you do that, you dont have to know what LRR is (or, at the least, you can learn about it without haphazardly applying it to your accounts, ESPECIALLY if they are real-money ones). Fixed lots of .01-.02 per $1,000 of equity is safe and profitable trading.
At the risk of sounding condescending, why would you want to swallow things wholesale?
If you are already leaving the logic of entering and exiting your trades to an automated system, at the very least spend some time understanding the money management side of it.
If I didn't bother to analyse, I wouldn't have come to the conclusion that LRR does not set a SL for Super Volcano.
We already don't know how Super Volcano exits a losing trade. And the default settings have no SL set. It's not "safe and profitable trading" to letting an algorithm decide whether your a/c is wiped out or not. It's currently -1920 pips GBPJPY for one trade event on FRWC's own live test. That's about 43% down. There's is no reason that this next week it doesn't wipe out the a/c. (If I were them, I would just cut it short now to save the marketing effort, and then implement a SL.)
If you don't bother to analyse or understand things fully and do what people tell you is 'okay', they're just going to take your money. And you wouldn't have a right to blame them.
Biedrs kopš
16 ieraksti
Feb 27, 2010 at 23:30
(labots Feb 27, 2010 at 23:58)
Clearpaper, in both cases you "added words/arguments" to the points I made. Here are my 2 points of response:
(1.) You are totally correct that understanding LRR and the auto money management system(s) employed by these robots is important and, in many cases, it is very useful to use the automatic money management features. My contention was, and should have been more clearly articulated, that you should set the LRR to be *consistent* with what amounts to a conservative .01 or .02 lot size per $1,000 of capital (or, alternatively, do it manually like I do). NOT that you should always do it manually and never use auto money management features. I am sorry if that point was lost in my overall criticism of misused automatic money management -- I was really criticizing the over-zealous (over-risky) setting application of LRR, not the use of it (and understanding of it) in and of itself.
(2.) I am not leaving the logic to robots entirely!!! Who on earth said I was? That was an assumption on your part. If you read what I wrote, I had said that I use a mix of automatic trading AND manual trading. If anything, regarding Super Volcano, you are preaching to the choir here -- like I hinted at in a previous post, I've actually shut the damn thing off! So, I am very cautious and conservative with all of my trades, be them manual or close monitoring of robot-executed ones. I've got 5 accounts with real money posted live on here, aside from others not posted on here, and none of them are in loss (well, 1 is, but the aggregate profit/loss of the 5 accounts is in the green).
With all due respect, I kind of sense a (somewhat-understandable) bias in your voice to ignore my statements regarding how I handle automated trades and, instead, inserts the cliche "amateur blindly using a robot" mantra, despite the other statements I've made indicating the contrary. Thus, your assessment, in that particular regard, is simply incorrect.
At any rate, I do appreciate the analysis you've made -- and in all honesty, my comment wasn't even directed at, or triggered by, your post (even though your post preceded mine, by coincidence). It was triggered by several other posts that I won't specifically point out...
P.S. "Swallowing things wholesale" would be using the robot PDF manual's LRR recommended settings RATHER than using a manual, fixed small lot size (based on sound money management principles, not following a guru or FRWC), as I've stated that I do. Just a point to consider. Typically its those who rely on auto money management (not always, but typically) that are using the defaults for a given system... And LRR, while not for FRWC as the case would have it, is typically a default for robots such as FAPTurbo and Megadroid -- both of which I own and use, similarly, with fixed, small lot sizes.
(1.) You are totally correct that understanding LRR and the auto money management system(s) employed by these robots is important and, in many cases, it is very useful to use the automatic money management features. My contention was, and should have been more clearly articulated, that you should set the LRR to be *consistent* with what amounts to a conservative .01 or .02 lot size per $1,000 of capital (or, alternatively, do it manually like I do). NOT that you should always do it manually and never use auto money management features. I am sorry if that point was lost in my overall criticism of misused automatic money management -- I was really criticizing the over-zealous (over-risky) setting application of LRR, not the use of it (and understanding of it) in and of itself.
(2.) I am not leaving the logic to robots entirely!!! Who on earth said I was? That was an assumption on your part. If you read what I wrote, I had said that I use a mix of automatic trading AND manual trading. If anything, regarding Super Volcano, you are preaching to the choir here -- like I hinted at in a previous post, I've actually shut the damn thing off! So, I am very cautious and conservative with all of my trades, be them manual or close monitoring of robot-executed ones. I've got 5 accounts with real money posted live on here, aside from others not posted on here, and none of them are in loss (well, 1 is, but the aggregate profit/loss of the 5 accounts is in the green).
With all due respect, I kind of sense a (somewhat-understandable) bias in your voice to ignore my statements regarding how I handle automated trades and, instead, inserts the cliche "amateur blindly using a robot" mantra, despite the other statements I've made indicating the contrary. Thus, your assessment, in that particular regard, is simply incorrect.
At any rate, I do appreciate the analysis you've made -- and in all honesty, my comment wasn't even directed at, or triggered by, your post (even though your post preceded mine, by coincidence). It was triggered by several other posts that I won't specifically point out...
P.S. "Swallowing things wholesale" would be using the robot PDF manual's LRR recommended settings RATHER than using a manual, fixed small lot size (based on sound money management principles, not following a guru or FRWC), as I've stated that I do. Just a point to consider. Typically its those who rely on auto money management (not always, but typically) that are using the defaults for a given system... And LRR, while not for FRWC as the case would have it, is typically a default for robots such as FAPTurbo and Megadroid -- both of which I own and use, similarly, with fixed, small lot sizes.
forex_trader_7497
Biedrs kopš
50 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 01:43
(labots Feb 28, 2010 at 02:05)
zornjaso posted:
Maybe I am being overly simplistic here, but is it really so hard to just set it to MM off, .01 or .02 per $1,000 invested, and let it trade reasonably? If you do that, you dont have to know what LRR is (or, at the least, you can learn about it without haphazardly applying it to your accounts, ESPECIALLY if they are real-money ones). Fixed lots of .01-.02 per $1,000 of equity is safe and profitable trading.
Even though I set UseMM=True, I set LRR very low at 1.5 and most importantly, I set MaxLots at 2.0. If I understand MaxLots correctly, then the maximum leverage in all of the positions combined is 1:20. I would need to have -500 pips in ALL of my positions with different strategy before any margin call. In addition, I have reduced HiRIDER to 2 trades maximal, Super Volcano to 3 trades maximal, and I switched off Straasha and NegC, and also switched off 3 currency pairs in LMD. Practically speaking, I won't have more than 10 positions open at the same time using all strategy. This is very conservative despite the MM on.
I want to use the MM feature so that the lot size can be scaled up automatically as the equity grows.
forex_trader_7497
Biedrs kopš
50 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 01:48
Clearpaper posted:
O--kay.... Had you not posted, I probably wouldn't have worked it out. On to other things. I notice that SL does not come into the picture at all in the calculations above.
Just thinking about it, LLR applies a very useful technique for managing lot sizing. However its name is a little misleading. You technically don't manage your risk whatsoever. If there's no SL, your risk is 100%.
It would be better called "% Margin Used For Next Position", simply to avoid all the confusion. I mean, seriously. Haha...
That said, one lesson learnt from this week's Super Volcano performance is to put a SL. And I believe one goal now is to determine how high/low a SL to put for Super Volcano to maximise the efficacy of Fusion as a whole.
Possibly another one is to figure out the triggering criteria for SuperVolcano, I suspect pipst's a/c didn't trigger the loss and subsequent win trades that steve's and a number of other people's did is because of slippage or latency. Super Volcano's trigger window seems quite small.
Congratulations. This is probably the clearest explanation of LRR out there on the Internet. You are right, it has nothing to do with the Stop Loss. Knowing how this works however is going to be a big help for me, so I can set it to the best level based on my risk profile. Now since you are doing very well, do you know what MaxLots mean in Fusion, and what DecreasedFactor mean in the stand alone Super Volcano? 😁
forex_trader_7497
Biedrs kopš
50 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 02:02
irbis posted:
hey guys what r u talkin about? its not about consistent profit..its all about the cost of this big SHIT... u can find better systems on forexfactory for peanuts ..nada...
and for the other one...when im clubbin or f**in i aint thinkin of forex ..luckily... so nobody tells you you shld make profit every day...people who think they will get money just like that are wrong...dont worry so was I...it was a necessary ..we learn on mistakes..
Hi irbis,
I'm interested in free robots with consistent profits. Can you post any link to the forexfactory for these robots that you find profitable? I'll test them in demo account.
At least FRWC robots have been tested live for two months (and also backtested) with investor password, so I have seen with my own eyes that they are profitable.
Last time I check Steve's portfolio, he is up 5.54% in a week of trading, without taking into account his open orders. That equates to around 20% per month. Good enough for me. Let's see how it finishes in a month first before judging that this is a SHIT.
By the way, I wonder what do you guys expect the robots to return for you? If you want 100-200% per month, all you need to do is to increase the risk and hopefully you get lucky. The old adage of no risk no gain always applies. Every system out there which advertise large gain per month always risk a lot of your equity. That kind of huge return is good for demo account, or for $500 account or even $5000 account, for the sheer thrill of gambling. If you get lucky, you get huge return. If not, then who cares, it's demo or small account anyway.
If you have $100,000 or $1,000,000 or more, you will already be very happy if you are able to get 5-10% every month with as low risk as possible. Fund managers who manage millions and billions of dollars have a return of 10-20% per year.
Biedrs kopš
16 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 02:22
Personally, eafinder, I seek a return of 10% - 20% per month per account.
forex_trader_7497
Biedrs kopš
50 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 02:23
(labots Feb 28, 2010 at 02:28)
Clearpaper posted:
We already don't know how Super Volcano exits a losing trade. And the default settings have no SL set. It's not "safe and profitable trading" to letting an algorithm decide whether your a/c is wiped out or not. It's currently -1920 pips GBPJPY for one trade event on FRWC's own live test. That's about 43% down. There's is no reason that this next week it doesn't wipe out the a/c. (If I were them, I would just cut it short now to save the marketing effort, and then implement a SL.)
Are you referring to the three GBP JPY long positions with a buy price around 141 at FRWC's own live test? I find it odd to see 2 more GBP JPY trades yesterday. I thought SV default has a maximum of 4 trades? Their open trades now have 5 positions. Either they increase the max trades manually or they change the parameter in Fusion v1.2. I haven't bothered to really use v1.2 since they are basically the same with previous version, only switching on and off certain things.
Biedrs kopš
54 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 14:12
EY eafinder... take a simple bigdog strategy it will make more pips than any of these robots... + add some scalping technique ...
look at my system Fusion Demo => LOL blown in less than 2 weeks.!!! http://www.myfxbook.com/members/irbis/fusion-frwc-demo/18195
i aint give a shit about optimizing/modifying... they said 300% whatsoever guaranteed profit => where is it?
5% lol 5% for 1000$ system? hahaha + 1000$ that you will lose.. pretty expensive..cant wait to be refunded..
look at my system Fusion Demo => LOL blown in less than 2 weeks.!!! http://www.myfxbook.com/members/irbis/fusion-frwc-demo/18195
i aint give a shit about optimizing/modifying... they said 300% whatsoever guaranteed profit => where is it?
5% lol 5% for 1000$ system? hahaha + 1000$ that you will lose.. pretty expensive..cant wait to be refunded..
forex_trader_7497
Biedrs kopš
50 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 14:44
irbis posted:
EY eafinder... take a simple bigdog strategy it will make more pips than any of these robots... + add some scalping technique ...
look at my system Fusion Demo => LOL blown in less than 2 weeks.!!! http://www.myfxbook.com/members/irbis/fusion-frwc-demo/18195
i aint give a shit about optimizing/modifying... they said 300% whatsoever guaranteed profit => where is it?
5% lol 5% for 1000$ system? hahaha + 1000$ that you will lose.. pretty expensive..cant wait to be refunded..
Very interesting. You are the only one who blew up the account using Fusion so far. I take a look at the details of your trade carefully. You basically are profitable until 2/25 around 6% when suddenly you have 4 trades EUR GBP with a huge lot size relative to your equity which then wipe out 80% of your equity. These 4 trades can't come from either Straasha or LMD. Both Straasha and LMD always put TP and SL in your other trades. But for these 4 trades, both SL and TP are set to 0. You seem to be either using some other robots or trade manually for these 4 horrific trades.
I guess everyone just have their own ways to judge, which is fine with me. I'll wait at least for 1 full month before saying one or the other. I am currently still experimenting various options with FRWC robots. Let's see what sort of return I can come up by the end of March.
Biedrs kopš
95 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 18:14
Hi zornjaso,
I agree with you, my bad on assuming you leave trading to the logic of the EA's solely. It just sounded like it. And I think we were posting at the same time, such that you might not have seen my earlier post on the lack of SL for Super Volcano before your post on setting a conservative lotsize. My point of contention was that, regardless of having conservative lotsize/equity, without a SL, Super Volcano still has a chance to clean out an account.
And to be frank, the statement below did make me feel that you were dismissive of the process of understanding."If you do that, you dont have to know what LRR is (or, at the least, you can learn about it without haphazardly applying it to your accounts, ESPECIALLY if they are real-money ones). Fixed lots of .01-.02 per $1,000 of equity is safe and profitable trading."
I'm sure you realise by now that we aren't haphazardly applying it to our live accounts and that we put in quite a bit of effort demo-ing, analysing, and posting our observations. Were we to just use a fixed lotsize, we won't understand what LRR is now.
Just to re-emphasize, a conservative LRR can still destroy an a/c.
I agree with you, my bad on assuming you leave trading to the logic of the EA's solely. It just sounded like it. And I think we were posting at the same time, such that you might not have seen my earlier post on the lack of SL for Super Volcano before your post on setting a conservative lotsize. My point of contention was that, regardless of having conservative lotsize/equity, without a SL, Super Volcano still has a chance to clean out an account.
And to be frank, the statement below did make me feel that you were dismissive of the process of understanding."If you do that, you dont have to know what LRR is (or, at the least, you can learn about it without haphazardly applying it to your accounts, ESPECIALLY if they are real-money ones). Fixed lots of .01-.02 per $1,000 of equity is safe and profitable trading."
I'm sure you realise by now that we aren't haphazardly applying it to our live accounts and that we put in quite a bit of effort demo-ing, analysing, and posting our observations. Were we to just use a fixed lotsize, we won't understand what LRR is now.
Just to re-emphasize, a conservative LRR can still destroy an a/c.
Biedrs kopš
95 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 18:30
(labots Feb 28, 2010 at 18:44)
eafinder posted:
Congratulations. This is probably the clearest explanation of LRR out there on the Internet. You are right, it has nothing to do with the Stop Loss. Knowing how this works however is going to be a big help for me, so I can set it to the best level based on my risk profile. Now since you are doing very well, do you know what MaxLots mean in Fusion, and what DecreasedFactor mean in the stand alone Super Volcano? 😁
Yes, that was my intention too, to allow the trades to scale accordingly. How else can I go for my year-long yachting cruise, and come back to see the EA still chugging along at 0.01 lots? Haha...
I hazard a guess that Maxlots is as what it states, the maximum open lots possible. For DecreaseFactor, I don't know, I suspect it's the same as LRR. I gave up my initial observation that it reduces the next position by a factor when you pointed out something to the effect that mt4 probably would not differentiate a trade event and a next trade position within an event. (Makes sense!) Every single position would simply be independent of the other positions. As such, to change the lotsize, you would need a different reference point, the margin would be the most logical one. Ergo DecreaseFactor=LRR. But who, apart from Manolito Gulla, really knows? Hahaha... We could ask him. "Hey, your EA made me blow my account, yer bastard. What's DecreaseFactor, eh?"
I'm kinda tempted to try LMD. Could you post your observations about it? What made you choose to turn off some pairs? Do you see some difference in the EA logic or price-action performance for those pairs?
Biedrs kopš
95 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 19:25
eafinder posted:
irbis posted:
EY eafinder... take a simple bigdog strategy it will make more pips than any of these robots... + add some scalping technique ...
look at my system Fusion Demo => LOL blown in less than 2 weeks.!!! http://www.myfxbook.com/members/irbis/fusion-frwc-demo/18195
i aint give a shit about optimizing/modifying... they said 300% whatsoever guaranteed profit => where is it?
5% lol 5% for 1000$ system? hahaha + 1000$ that you will lose.. pretty expensive..cant wait to be refunded..
Very interesting. You are the only one who blew up the account using Fusion so far. I take a look at the details of your trade carefully. You basically are profitable until 2/25 around 6% when suddenly you have 4 trades EUR GBP with a huge lot size relative to your equity which then wipe out 80% of your equity. These 4 trades can't come from either Straasha or LMD. Both Straasha and LMD always put TP and SL in your other trades. But for these 4 trades, both SL and TP are set to 0. You seem to be either using some other robots or trade manually for these 4 horrific trades.
I guess everyone just have their own ways to judge, which is fine with me. I'll wait at least for 1 full month before saying one or the other. I am currently still experimenting various options with FRWC robots. Let's see what sort of return I can come up by the end of March.
Thank you for posting your demo, irbis.
eafinder, it looks legit. From what I can see, the martingale component of Straasha kicks in after a loss by opening limit orders which do not have SL/TP. You can compare with the earlier trades. The lot sizes are identical (9,13,17,21,25,29,33,37,41).
However, something about the settings in Straasha might be different. I can't comment further as I didn't test it.
irbis, could you tell us if and what you changed for Straasha? We can learn from each other.
And irbis didn't over-extend the lotsize, trading the recommended 0.01lot/$1k. It is a little disconcerting to see the a/c blow up as it did. Although I'll probably not run Straasha, but still, always good to learn.
Interestingly enough, his Super Volcano stopped out at -685 and -675 pips.
A point to note about irbis' gripe, and I can fully empathise, even though there is no strict misrepresentation about the EA's performance of 354% in 19 days, it took an insane amount of risk trading 0.1 lots for its $1k account. 10 times more! It's either dumb luck or, as Steve pointed out, that they traded multiple accounts with graduated lot/equity and posted the one that did not blow its a/c.
Still, if trading 0.01lots/$1k equity has the possibility to yield 35.4%, I'll be very happy. It's worth taking a look and modifying/optimising the EA. I'm gunning for 50%/mth to make it worth my time.
Biedrs kopš
54 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 21:31
(labots Feb 28, 2010 at 21:51)
i didnt change nothing that why i m testing... if i wld change anything i would call it irbis bot..
i will open again acc. with 3k ..
look im not totally anti frwc im just very disappointed by price paid/ performance received... if it was 50$ i wld just shut my mouth...
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/irbis/fusion3knewdemo1/19648
we'll see again
i will open again acc. with 3k ..
look im not totally anti frwc im just very disappointed by price paid/ performance received... if it was 50$ i wld just shut my mouth...
http://www.myfxbook.com/members/irbis/fusion3knewdemo1/19648
we'll see again
Biedrs kopš
1 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 22:03
irbis,
you had mentioned earlier that there were profitable systems with source available on the forexfactory or tsd forums. I have pulled down a few, but have not found a reliable one there, yet. I like the idea of being able to review the code to see what it does. would you mind suggesting some that you respect?
I, too, am disappointed with fusion (after all the marketing) - it just is not showing the reliability or style I like.
you had mentioned earlier that there were profitable systems with source available on the forexfactory or tsd forums. I have pulled down a few, but have not found a reliable one there, yet. I like the idea of being able to review the code to see what it does. would you mind suggesting some that you respect?
I, too, am disappointed with fusion (after all the marketing) - it just is not showing the reliability or style I like.
forex_trader_7497
Biedrs kopš
50 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 23:17
(labots Feb 28, 2010 at 23:34)
Well guys,
My Super Volcano just opened more trades even though the last 3 open trades have not been closed, so I now have a total of 5 open trades.
It appears to me that the max trades parameter in Super Volcano DOES NOT take into account any open trade.
My Super Volcano just opened more trades even though the last 3 open trades have not been closed, so I now have a total of 5 open trades.
It appears to me that the max trades parameter in Super Volcano DOES NOT take into account any open trade.
forex_trader_7497
Biedrs kopš
50 ieraksti
Feb 28, 2010 at 23:33
Clearpaper posted:
I'm kinda tempted to try LMD. Could you post your observations about it? What made you choose to turn off some pairs? Do you see some difference in the EA logic or price-action performance for those pairs?
It's a temporary conclusion based on my observation of the 2 month competition live result, Fusion forward test result by FRWC since January, as well as backtesting of the author. In the backtesting, I look at drawdown %, profit factor, and mismatched data error.
I posted this attachment below earlier. It's a summary of the 2 month live competition.
I feel that the risk reward ratio of LMD is the best compared to the other strategies. I therefore feel more comfortable using a little more lot size for each LMD position. The stop loss of LMD is typically between 40 - 60 pips, so even if the lot size is several times of your equity, the risk is still relatively small.
I am currently experimenting with LMD as a standalone, combined with Fusion. In Fusion, I turn off the LMD, and let the standalone LMD do the trade by itself. This way, I can assign higher number of fixed lots for LMD, while keeping the lot size position for SuperVolcano and HiRIDER in Fusion low. In Fusion, I could only assign fixed lots globally for all strategies, whereas I want to assign fixed lots differently for each strategy based on the different risk profile of each strategy.
forex_trader_7497
Biedrs kopš
50 ieraksti
Mar 01, 2010 at 01:45
(labots Mar 01, 2010 at 01:46)
Clearpaper posted:
A point to note about irbis' gripe, and I can fully empathise, even though there is no strict misrepresentation about the EA's performance of 354% in 19 days, it took an insane amount of risk trading 0.1 lots for its $1k account. 10 times more! It's either dumb luck or, as Steve pointed out, that they traded multiple accounts with graduated lot/equity and posted the one that did not blow its a/c.
Trading multiple accounts with new funds everyday with dfferent lot/equity will need a lot of capital, but it's not impossible. I am just very curious why their current live result starts on Feb 5 with $1000. As some others and I have pointed out, based on the backtesting, HiRIDER hits a full 210 pips stop loss in all 10 trades on Feb 4 (21% down if lot is 0.01, or 42% down if lot is 0.02). That's just 1 day earlier before their live starting date. Coincidence / luck?
Biedrs kopš
131 ieraksti
Mar 01, 2010 at 08:06
Its a IamFX demo - So they just created a new one on the 5th after it tanked on the 4th. The account was prob started on Feb 1st then blew up. RESTART!!
It ain't easy being Cheesy!
