<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<title type="html"><![CDATA[Forex Software — Any way to increase FSB accuracy?]]></title>
	<link rel="self" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/feed/atom/topic/7541/" />
	<updated>2018-10-12T11:25:38Z</updated>
	<generator>PunBB</generator>
	<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/topic/7541/any-way-to-increase-fsb-accuracy/</id>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Any way to increase FSB accuracy?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52556/#p52556" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><blockquote><p>but MT4 &#039;Every Tick&#039; is closer to live</p></blockquote></div><p>Interesting statement!<br />Are you sure your live trading &quot;freezes&quot; for the last 30 seconds of each bar?</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Popov]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/2/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2018-10-12T11:25:38Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52556/#p52556</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Re: Any way to increase FSB accuracy?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52534/#p52534" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>Actually.<br />It does seem to be only certain entry methods that do this.<br />Just looked at the results from a different EA and its a much closer match. Probably the fact these few only had the one slot used is magnifying the inaccuracy.</p><p>Shame though as the simple ones seem to test as being much more robust (in terms of profitability on different time frames etc)</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Noble-6]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/10775/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2018-10-10T18:54:43Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52534/#p52534</id>
		</entry>
		<entry>
			<title type="html"><![CDATA[Any way to increase FSB accuracy?]]></title>
			<link rel="alternate" href="https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52533/#p52533" />
			<content type="html"><![CDATA[<p>OK, I know its probably a common question but i am seeing some huge discrepancies between FSBs generation/backtests and MT4 backtests/live running.</p><p>An example:<br />I have an EA developed on the M30. Its really basic with no indicators for entry other than the default slot. Obviously FSB says its pretty profitable. Running a backtest in MT4 over the same period with &#039;control points&#039; also shows its profitable and looks similar to the FSB result. Using &#039;every tick&#039; (and yes i know its interpolated) in MT4 over the same period suggests the strategy is basically junk. So i let it run for a few days and then had a look at the MT4 backtest results vs what actually happened. The &#039;every tick&#039; backtest is almost a perfect match for the real time run while the &#039;control points&#039; is a lot more optimistic. I havent recalculated it in FSB but to be honest there seems little point. The original FSB generation was close to the MT4 control points backtest which i now know to be worthless.</p><p>So is there any way to increase the accuracy of FSB because it looks like when its generating strategies its doing a really loose version of MT4s &#039;control points&#039; backtest. Is it perhaps that certain indicators/open methods are more susceptible to inaccuracy so just need to be avoided? Its not just one strategy, its a few but they are all based on things like :</p><p>&#039;Enter at Upper/Lower band&#039; on a channel type indicator<br />&#039;Enter Long after a Downwards Move&#039;<br />Or &#039;Previous High/Low&#039;, &#039;Top Bottom Price&#039; type entries.</p><p>and all show similar where MT4 &#039;control points&#039; is similar to FSB and profitable but MT4 &#039;Every Tick&#039; is closer to live and not so profitable.</p>]]></content>
			<author>
				<name><![CDATA[Noble-6]]></name>
				<uri>https://forexsb.com/forum/user/10775/</uri>
			</author>
			<updated>2018-10-10T18:47:17Z</updated>
			<id>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52533/#p52533</id>
		</entry>
</feed>
