What if we learn from the losers to build better winners?

Hi,

I guess your are looking selecting the indicators, correct ?

Look at the snapshot in attachement.

Vincenzo



shenkar23 wrote:

Hi!

I would like to know how I make the EAstudio to create only those good strategies you described. For example: without putting MA and MACD together.

Regards,
Avraham Shenkar (new user of EAstudio)






Vincenzo wrote:

Most of us focus on the EAs that perform well — trying to replicate their success.
But what if the real learning signal comes from the ones that consistently fail?

In our current EURUSD incubator (same broker, running time horizon over a year), we took the opposite route:

I isolated the top 10 worst-performing strategies and ran an AI-driven structural analysis directly on their .mq4 source code, all originally generated with EA Studio.

First findings:
    •    Every losing EA used AND-only logic — all entry conditions had to be true at once.
    •    Entry rules were roughly double the exit rules.
    •    Many combined indicators from the same family (e.g. MA + MACD + ADX), adding delay but no new information.
    •    Few had explicit SL/TP or volatility filters (ATR, Donchian, StdDev).
    •    The outcome was predictable: late entries, slow exits, long stagnation.

This raised a bigger question:
EA Studio’s generator randomly builds “confirmation systems” (all conditions in AND).
Could part of the losing cluster come from over-confirmation bias rather than poor market fit?

I’m now expanding the work into a full AI-assisted Winners vs Losers comparison —
same pair, same broker — to isolate which structural patterns actually drive long-term robustness.

If anyone here wants to experiment with the same GPT workflow we’re using for the analysis (it’s fully replicable and compatible with EA Studio outputs), l’m happy to share it.

Would love to hear the community’s view:
    •    Have you ever analyzed your losing collections to see what logic keeps failing?
    •    What filters or generation rules have helped you avoid the typical “AND-only trap”?

The fastest way forward for a consistent success rate might not come from the top of the leaderboard — but from understanding what’s at the bottom.

Vincenzo

What if we learn from the losers to build better winners?

Hi!

I would like to know how I make the EAstudio to create only those good strategies you described. For example: without putting MA and MACD together.

Regards,
Avraham Shenkar (new user of EAstudio)






Vincenzo wrote:

Most of us focus on the EAs that perform well — trying to replicate their success.
But what if the real learning signal comes from the ones that consistently fail?

In our current EURUSD incubator (same broker, running time horizon over a year), we took the opposite route:

I isolated the top 10 worst-performing strategies and ran an AI-driven structural analysis directly on their .mq4 source code, all originally generated with EA Studio.

First findings:
    •    Every losing EA used AND-only logic — all entry conditions had to be true at once.
    •    Entry rules were roughly double the exit rules.
    •    Many combined indicators from the same family (e.g. MA + MACD + ADX), adding delay but no new information.
    •    Few had explicit SL/TP or volatility filters (ATR, Donchian, StdDev).
    •    The outcome was predictable: late entries, slow exits, long stagnation.

This raised a bigger question:
EA Studio’s generator randomly builds “confirmation systems” (all conditions in AND).
Could part of the losing cluster come from over-confirmation bias rather than poor market fit?

I’m now expanding the work into a full AI-assisted Winners vs Losers comparison —
same pair, same broker — to isolate which structural patterns actually drive long-term robustness.

If anyone here wants to experiment with the same GPT workflow we’re using for the analysis (it’s fully replicable and compatible with EA Studio outputs), l’m happy to share it.

Would love to hear the community’s view:
    •    Have you ever analyzed your losing collections to see what logic keeps failing?
    •    What filters or generation rules have helped you avoid the typical “AND-only trap”?

The fastest way forward for a consistent success rate might not come from the top of the leaderboard — but from understanding what’s at the bottom.

Vincenzo

Wish List for EA Studio Expert Advisors

Option of maximal duration of the trade in time/bars
Thanks!

correlated strategies

Hi!

I would like to ask: did anyone check if it is a good advice to throw correlated strategies after backtesting.
Let's say after backtesting we have 3 correlated strategies, A B and C. On backtesting they are similar, but in live B is the best of them. The problem is that B was created after A, therefore it was thrown away by the software, and we lost the best strategy.

I will be glad to hear your opinion.

Avraham Shenkar

From EA Generation to DARWINEX Zero — Connecting the Dots

Over the last months I’ve shared several parts of the work — sometimes about EA Studio generation & settings, sometimes about demo incubation, sometimes about the FxBlue workflow, sometimes about Masters creation.
This post is simply to connect everything into one coherent process and show where we are today.

1) The starting point
The starting point was simple.
Like everyone, starting in May/June 2024, I started generating EAs like hell.

But very quickly, the first real question came up:
How do you consistently produce, validate, and deploy multiple strategies at scale — without losing control?

2) Generation — creating the raw material
Everything starts with generation in EA Studio Reactor.
•    building strategies
•    defining rules and settings
•    producing a large and diverse pool of EAs

At this stage, the objective is not perfection.
It is: breadth and diversity

3) Incubation — the first real filter
The first obvious step was the installation of multiple demo accounts, which quickly turned into what we now call the incubation phase.
•    running many EAs
•    letting them accumulate trades
•    observing real behavior over time

The goal here is simple: exposure to real data and initial validation
No shortcuts.
No assumptions.
Just letting strategies run.
Over time, this scaled.

Today the environment is:

•    ~30 MT4/MT5 instances
•    ~1,000 EAs running
•    ~86,000 cumulative trades
•    ~9,000 trades per month

Every time I explain this setup, the reaction is usually the same: “You’re crazy.” Maybe.

But without this, I could not have learned what I know today.

At that scale, something important happens: you stop thinking in terms of individual strategies and start thinking in terms of systems

This is what the incubation layer looks like today:

https://i.postimg.cc/nVQtGt6T/IMG-3890.png


4) The problem that emerged

As the number of strategies increased, a clear problem appeared:

•    too many EAs
•    too much data
•    discretionary top selections were not really working live
•    no consistent way to evaluate them

This is where the need became obvious: control and structure

5) Building the workflow — FxBlue + AI

To bring structure into the process, we needed two elements:

•    a reliable data source
•    a consistent way to process it

Then FxBlue became the connector.

It provides:

•    unified tracking across accounts
•    consistent trade data
•    a stable base for analysis

On top of that, we built the workflow using AI. Not to predict markets, but to:

•    process large volumes of data
•    apply deterministic rules
•    standardize classification
•    generate repeatable outputs

This allowed us to move from:

•    manual observation

to:

a structured, reproducible workflow

6) FxBlue Workflow — bringing order

With FxBlue as data source and the workflow on top (upstream), strategies are no longer just running.
They are: continuously evaluated and classified based on objective rules

Over time, each strategy moves through defined states:

•    Ongoing Incubation
•    Promotion Watchlist
•    Ready for Live
•    Pruning Box
•    Earth Birds

This transforms incubation from:

•    a collection of EAs

into:

a controlled pipeline

FxBlue governance snapshot — distribution of strategies across the pipeline

https://i.postimg.cc/m2t1whTn/E24BB2D4-412B-4717-9653-5779FB979869.png

From ~1,000 running strategies, only ~40 reach the Top Band and are considered for Masters.

7) Masters — structuring what survived

When strategies reach the Top Band, they are not used directly. They are combined into Masters within Quant Analyzer.

Masters are: structured portfolios of validated EA Studio strategies

Built to balance:

•    size
•    symbols
•    assets
•    equity behavior

The objective is not to find the best combination.

It is:

to verify that validated strategies remain stable once combined into a portfolio structure

This is where individual strategies become a portfolio — return and risk combined

https://i.postimg.cc/13ytdtSV/DF93C641-6BC8-4F9D-8C43-26FF0F094298.png

8) Master Governance — keeping the structure clean

Once Masters (Darwinex demo accounts) are running, a second layer (downstream) of control is applied.

This layer focuses on:

•    removing clear failures
•    monitoring degradation
•    tracking inactivity
•    maintaining structure over time

The goal is not to re-evaluate everything again.

It is:

to keep the signal pool clean and controlled

9) Moving from demo to real

Moving EAs directly from demo to real accounts does not work reliably. The fallback risk to poor performance is simply too high. So we moved to a different approach: signal copy trading.

We do not reinstall EAs on real accounts:

•    we open real accounts
•    we select the best Masters of the month
•    we copy trades from Masters into real accounts

The goal is not to overcomplicate the structure.

It is:

to preserve performance by keeping execution in the same environment where it was validated

10) Where we are today

After:
•    generation
•    incubation
•    building the workflow
•    classifying strategies
•    structuring Masters
•    validating signals

we now have: a structured and continuously filtered set of strategies

11) Next step — deployment

Tomorrow we move to the next phase → Launch of 2 new DARWINEX Zero portfolios

These will:

•    select validated Masters and copy their trades
•    understand how Darwinex risk calibration behaves on our structure
•    apply portfolio construction rules
•    target seed allocation (~2 months) and investor capital (~6 months)

Final thought

This is not about a single EA. It is about building a process that:

•    generates strategies
•    accumulates data
•    creates structure
•    filters signals
•    and only then deploys them

We might still be wrong. But one thing became clear:

the focus should not be on the single strategy, but on the system that manages and scales them

Of course, we’ll also share what happens with the new DARWINs.

P.S.: Last but not least, all of this was possible thanks to a team of five traders working together toward a shared goal. Thanks to this forum, two more members will join us next week. I can’t wait to have them on board.

Vincenzo

Interesting Readings

Today I spent some time challenging our workflow, and one of the layers we usually go through is the academic, specialist, and institutional best-practice layer.

Here, for good readers only :-) — meaning time and patience required — are some interesting readings in the context of trading strategy selection, statistical relevance, correlations, and a few other related topics.

They might be interesting for anyone who likes to look beyond single backtests and think more deeply about how trading strategies should be evaluated.

The Adaptive Markets Hypothesis (Andrew Lo).
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … erspective

Concept: Explains why trading edges are perishable. It justifies our high-turnover replacement model and the 3-month median lifespan of promoted strategies.

• ...and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns (Harvey, Liu, & Zhu).
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … ed_Returns

Concept: Addresses the "Data Mining" problem. It supports our 6-KPI "Filter Stack" as a necessary barrier against the thousands of "lucky" backtests generated by automated tools.

The Deflated Sharpe Ratio (Marcos López de Prado)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … -Normality

Concept: Corrects for "Selection Bias." It validates our rigorous incubation process before capital allocation.

Does Academic Research Destroy Predictability? (McLean & Pontiff)
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2 … d0a2582415

Concept: Proves that alpha decays post-discovery. This supports our "Strict Thresholds" policy—treating mature strategies with the same skepticism as new ones.

Portfolio Selection (Harry Markowitz)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … _Selection

Concept: The mathematical root of our 0.80 Correlation Cap. It proves that portfolio risk is driven more by the link between strategies than by individual performance.

Honey, I Shrunk the Covariance Matrix (Ledoit & Wolf)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … _Selection

Concept: Addresses the instability of live correlations. It is the theoretical backbone for our dynamic monitoring of "Regime Lock" in the Master accounts.

Stepwise Multiple Testing (Romano & Wolf)
https://ideas.repec.org/p/bge/wpaper/17.html

Concept: (Stable Institutional Mirror) Supports our Hysteresis Loops (PwL/OgI) by proving that consistent performance across multiple stages is the only reliable signal of a lasting edge.

Sequential Analysis (Abraham Wald)
https://projecteuclid.org/journals/anna … 30491.full

Concept: (Project Euclid Stable Link) Validates our rule by providing a framework for making continuous "Keep/Prune" decisions as new data arrives.

The 7 Sins of Quantitative Investing (López de Prado)
https://portfoliooptimizationbook.com/b … -sins.html

Concept: A roadmap for avoiding common pitfalls like survivorship and look-ahead bias, supporting our "Lifetime String" data fusion.

Crowded Trades and Tail Risk (Pedersen & Stein)
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … _Tail_Risk

Concept: Discusses how crowded strategies lead to liquidity holes. It justifies our 10% Global Kill-Switch as a safeguard against systemic events.


Enjoy
Vincenzo

Grid Trading with EA Studio Experts (Averaging Down)

@all, is anyone else currently testing the grid option in EA Studio Plus?

Grid Trading with EA Studio Experts (Averaging Down)

Our goal is to test the combined effect of Fibonacci distance and Pair Closing — the feature that makes this grid unique. Actual Results are positive, but the data shows no observable Fibonacci behavior. Performance is driven primarily by the Pair Closing mechanism.

--------------------------

Why Fibonacci contribution is not observable (yet)
There are two main reasons:
1. Pair Closing limits grid depth
With Pair Closing enabled, the system continuously:
•    closes the first and last positions
•    reduces exposure
•    rebuilds the basket
Effect:
•    sequences remain short
•    most grids stop at 2–3 trades
•    Fibonacci (which requires ≥4 trades to emerge) cannot develop

In practice:the system manages the basket instead of allowing the grid to expand

2. Insufficient sequence depth in the data
•    only one sequence (EURJPY) had sufficient depth to test Fibonacci
•    that sequence does not follow Fibonacci progression (currently under investigation)
•    all others: have ≤ 3 tradesm→ insufficient to validate Fibonacci behavior

Conclusion: Fibonacci cannot be confirmed from the current dataset

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grid Maximum Distance with Fibonacci (important)
When Fibonacci is enabled, distances grow non-linearly.

Example
•    Initial distance = 50 pips
•    Max trades = 8

Linear assumption (incorrect)
Step    Distance    Cumulative
1    50    50
2    50    100
3    50    150
4    50    200
5    50    250
6    50    300
7    50    350
8    50    400

Max Distance (linear) = 400 pips

Fibonacci (correct logic)
Step    Distance    Cumulative
1    50    50
2    50    100
3    100    200
4    150    350
5    250    600
6    400    1000
7    650    1650
8    1050    2700

Max Distance (Fibonacci) ≈ 2700 pips

Key difference
•    Linear assumption: 400 pips
•    Fibonacci reality: ~2700 pips
~7x difference

Conclusion
Grid Maximum Distance does not define the logic — it only limits it. If set too low, it prevents Fibonacci from ever developing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final takeaway
•    results are real and positive
•    but driven by: Pair Closing (active basket management)
•    not by: observable Fibonacci behavior

To properly test Fibonacci, the grid must be allowed to develop sufficient depth — which currently does not happen with Pair Closing active and constrained distance settings. It is not bad, just a fact based status quo.

Regards
Vincenzo

Grid Trading with EA Studio Experts (Averaging Down)

Hello Everyone,

One important finding from the current DOE is that Grid Plus should not be treated as a universal enhancement for any strategy.

At this stage, the focus is not on the exit side, since that part has already been identified and operational recommendations are already in place.

The real focus here is the trading strategy itself, and more specifically the entry logic.

The key question is whether the original entry logic is structurally compatible with a grid-based position-building process, in which the grid acts as a recovery layer to improve the strategy’s overall performance.

This is becoming an important direction for anyone following the DOE and transforming existing EAs into EA Plus versions.

A grid does not create an edge by itself. It can only support a strategy when the original entry is suitable for recovery. In practice, this means the first trade does not reach the take profit, the market moves against the entry, and instead of ending at the stop loss, the grid has enough room to begin the recovery phase.

That is why strategy selection matters.

More suitable for Grid Plus:

  • mean reversion entries

  • pullback entries

  • temporary price deviation setups

  • strategies where the market can move against the initial entry for some distance and still leave room for recovery

Less suitable for Grid Plus:

  • breakout entries

  • momentum entries

  • strong trend-continuation entries

  • strategies where, if the first trade is wrong, the market can continue moving away in a directional and aggressive way, turning the grid from a recovery layer into an exposure amplifier

So the practical implication, at least from the current stage of the DOE, is clear:

not every EA should automatically be transformed into an EA Plus version.

In other words:

Grid Plus is not a universal strategy upgrade. It is a specialized overlay for specific entry architectures.

So the workflow should not be:

add grid to everything and see what happens

but rather:

identify the strategies whose entry behavior can realistically support a recovery phase, and only then test the EA Plus version against the original one.

For anyone following this DOE, this is not a final conclusion yet, but it is already a relevant finding and a useful direction when deciding which existing EAs are worth transforming into EA Plus versions.

If you do not know the strategy behind your EA, this prompt can help classify the code and provide a first indication of whether the entry logic may be compatible with this type of grid application:

https://forexsb.com/forum/post/82827/#p82827

have a great day
Vincenzo

Looking for Partners

Hi all,

the offer above is still valid.

We are now 5, but I strongly believe that adding 1 or 2 more members would benefit the group as a whole.

What we mainly need is someone with deep EA Studio knowledge and a real interest in further developing the Generator/Reactor settings. We are currently creating EA with the 3.1, 4 and 5 generation of settings. Benchmark is on going.

A lot has already been developed and is already in use, but there is still clear potential to improve live EA success rates and extend EA longevity.

Our model is based on an “EA Pipeline Incubation” (~1000 EAs up) approach, so we strongly value new ideas that can help us generate more robust EAs and keep the pipeline consistently supplied with enough eligible systems each month for our signal platform and funded accounts.

For any new team member, the benefit is joining a serious and structured environment where ideas are not only discussed, but also tested, implemented, and monitored in practice. It also means direct participation to a real EA pipeline, continuous research on Generator/Reactor development, and access to all EAs that are considered eligible for live trading within the group.

In short, it would be a good fit for someone who wants to go beyond standard EA Studio usage and work together on improving real-world EA durability, live performance, and portfolio usability.

Happy to answer your questions or to talk to you in a call !

Vincenzo