<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Forex Software — "Calibration" versus "Optimization"]]></title>
		<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/topic/7576/calibration-versus-optimization/</link>
		<atom:link href="https://forexsb.com/forum/feed/rss/topic/7576/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description><![CDATA[The most recent posts in "Calibration" versus "Optimization".]]></description>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:15:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>PunBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: "Calibration" versus "Optimization"]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/58865/#p58865</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<div class="quotebox"><cite>stuwi1973 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>how do u do a walk forward optimization</p></blockquote></div><p>For Studio read here <a href="https://forexsb.com/wiki/eas-guide/walk-forward">https://forexsb.com/wiki/eas-guide/walk-forward</a>.</p><p>In Pro you have to manually shift the data horizon and optimize in steps for the same effect.</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (footon)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:15:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/58865/#p58865</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: "Calibration" versus "Optimization"]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/58864/#p58864</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>how do u do a walk forward optimization</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (stuwi1973)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sat, 18 Jan 2020 07:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/58864/#p58864</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: "Calibration" versus "Optimization"]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/53102/#p53102</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>This is an interesting topic. When calibrating an EA, how far back do you use historical data to complete it? 1 month, 3 month, 1 year, etc. I am finding that this is the part where I am getting stuck. I also don&#039;t agree to try to calibrate a strategy using data from 5 years ago. However, I am questioning what time period is considered &#039;current&#039; in order to use the data for calibration?</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (jacpin2002)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Thu, 29 Nov 2018 16:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/53102/#p53102</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Re: "Calibration" versus "Optimization"]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52863/#p52863</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>If you optimize it to the full range of parameters again and again, you&#039;ll have basically a different strategy (even with the same indicators) and overfit it to every out of sample segment. Instead we should just calibrate, optimize to a few parameters and limit the range to avoid such drastic change/overfitting.</p><p>This concept it&#039;s very relevant when you try out a walk forward optimization, so this make sense for me also.</p><p>Best Regards</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (ViniQ)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2018 13:42:59 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52863/#p52863</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA["Calibration" versus "Optimization"]]></title>
			<link>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52859/#p52859</link>
			<description><![CDATA[<p>Optimization vs Calibration...</p><p>I just had an &quot;ah-ha&quot; moment. Maybe it&#039;s obvious to most people -- I don&#039;t know.</p><p>Whenever I see people back test an EA using 2-year old, 5-year old and even 10-year old historical data I can&#039;t help but shake my head and wonder why would anyone bother testing an EA using old, stale, irrelevant data. Unless you have a time machine and plan to go back in time to trade, I don&#039;t get it.</p><p>And then something just occurred to me. I see it written all the time about &quot;optimizing&quot; an EA. MetaQuotes (the developers of MT4) are particularly guilty of this. Plus they perpetuate the use of the word &quot;optimize&quot;.</p><p>Here are the dictionary&#039;s definitions for &quot;optimize&quot; and &quot;calibrate&quot;:<br />optimize: to make as effective, or perfect as possible<br />calibrate: to determine or check the accuracy of an instrument</p><p>When people think they have &quot;optimized&quot; an EA, then it implies a process that was performed once and the EA will then perform well forever more. If you were to instead realize you have simply &quot;calibrated&quot; an EA, then it is understood this is a temporary check and the EA will need to be &quot;re-calibrated&quot; again in the future.</p><p>Perhaps because people have this misconception their EA has been &quot;optimized&quot; then it means back tests that date back to 2008 or 2011 or 2015 or even 2017 have relevance to how the EA will trade tomorrow. That is a totally misguided belief. And your own charts and back tests show it -- yet, most everyone chooses to ignore the obvious. Perhaps it&#039;s also due to the fact we are all lazy and really wish for it to be true that our &quot;optimized&quot; EA is perfect -- the alternative being we have to spend time to &quot;re-calibrate&quot;.</p><p>Perhaps if we instead began using the word &quot;calibrate&quot; then it is better understood the current settings are only temporary and will need to be &quot;re-calibrated&quot; in the future (to take into account changing market conditions).</p><p>Does this make sense to anyone?</p>]]></description>
			<author><![CDATA[null@example.com (sleytus)]]></author>
			<pubDate>Sun, 11 Nov 2018 05:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>https://forexsb.com/forum/post/52859/#p52859</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
