Topic: Indicators...

I am getting into indicators (long way go) as that is the key ingredient of any good strategy. I am not looking for specifics but want to get a general idea of what people use in their EA. What you have found to be effective and which one are being used the most. The lt is long but it would be nice if you could share your experiences of which ones were effective for entry and exits for different time frames or any other ones that you like to use.
Thanks in advance for sharing
Regards,

Re: Indicators...

Probably my opinion is very opinionated but I think that the most common and simpler indicators work the best.

Re: Indicators...

Hi, it is not so much the indicators but your trading framework that really matters.


It's like giving the same ingredients to 2 person.  A Master Chief and a person who doesn't know how to cook.

The final dish prepared out of the same ingredients can have very contrasting results.

Likewise, you can be using the same indicators of a top trader but still get different results.

As I recently did an experiment to test out the simple MA framework to develop EA and even these simple MA EA is very profitable that I use them in my live account too.

So the bottom line is, study the MT4 charts and figure out a sound trading plan, then use various indicators to super impose on the chart to see which gives you a better "fit" or synchronize well with the price changes.

Lastly, even if you have found the "correct" indicators and it's parameters.  Do remember if you use the "wrong" combination of the Smoothing, Signal or Base price setting, you can still be very far from finding your profitable EA.

Bottom line, if you are willing to put in the hard work to find the right setting, the efforts are rewarding, the best thing is, you have finally gained real trading skills.

For beginners, I would recommend to start with the simple MA crossing concept.  It really works, you can develop profitable EA from such concept.

Hannah

Re: Indicators...

Let the software generate the strategies for you -- and then select the ones with the best statistics.  In a few hours it can generate millions of combinations and perform the back testing -- all you have to do is then select the best ones.  Let the software do all the hard work and don't worry too much about ingredients.

5 (edited by araza 2017-09-07 14:52:46)

Re: Indicators...

sleytus wrote:

Let the software generate the strategies for you -- and then select the ones with the best statistics.  In a few hours it can generate millions of combinations and perform the back testing -- all you have to do is then select the best ones.  Let the software do all the hard work and don't worry too much about ingredients.

To be honest, I tried both FSB and EA studio and generated many strategies. I did not optimize and did monet carlo and also made sure that if on one set of parameters it generated 18 strategies I used the top 2 and then ran the generator again..this time with different parameters...I also tested the EA against my live account data in MT4 and it looked fine. However, not a single strategy has generated any money for me but the opposite.
I set TP to 50 and SL to 70 and the EAs generated looked good. I see the trades making money but never reach the TP and end up taking a 70 pip SL. Please see the screenshot...the last 3 trades I closed manually as one time they were at -17 each due to bigger lot size. For the past 4-5 days this is a daily occurrence. If I start with a live $1000 account..it will be finished in less than a month. I know I need to be patient and test the strategies for a long period but with such daily results..I am thinking that I a doing something wrong.
I check the drawdown and make sure that the graph is not over optimized...it would have been awesome if i could just let the software generate, test and be done but that is not the case. Not that lucky.
Open to suggestions....and willing to do the leg work...don't want handout EAs...want to create my own..but am lost here.

On the indicators side...looked at RSI on a 15 minute chart....any suggestion or things to lookout for. Made a bit os sense to me on the entry and exit...
Thanks

Post's attachments

Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 6.42.44 PM.png
Screen Shot 2017-09-07 at 6.42.44 PM.png 11.45 kb, 3 downloads since 2017-09-07 

You don't have the permssions to download the attachments of this post.

Re: Indicators...

Yes -- welcome to the club...

The software can generate, optimize and back test strategies as good (or better) than you can by hand.  But there is no guarantee of their performance in a live account.  I think most everyone has experienced that.  There are other things going on in a live account that we do not have control over -- e.g. the incoming data.  Some people recommend using your broker's data when generating, optimizing, and back testing strategies -- suggesting using your broker's data will yield results more similar to what you can expect in a live account.  Others have suggested using longer time frames -- e.g. >= 1 hour -- since the data will be less prone to noise and false signals.

The problem you describe also occurs when hand-coding strategies.  Prior to FSB and EA Studio traders lost money in live accounts.  Losing money in live accounts is caused by things we either don't fully understand or do not have control over.  Even people who fully understand the intimate details of how each indicator works are not guaranteed of winning.

FSB Pro is used to create many fine strategies -- better than what you could create by hand-coding.  But consistently winning in a live account is something I think we all wrestle with.

Re: Indicators...

I am using my broker data. So what you are saying is that I should lets say create a strategy for EURUSD using H1 and test it on M15 or a lower time frame?
I did not hand code anything...just let the software do its thing...I also did not choose the parameters...took what it gave me.
Thanks

8 (edited by hannahis 2017-09-07 20:20:20)

Re: Indicators...

Hi Araza,

There are basically 2 groups of FSB users.

1. Let the software does it's work
2. Input your own trading theory and use the FSB to fine tune or search for a better setting/combinations (Smooth, Signal, Base setting).

There is no right or wrong path.  We tend to make our choices on the following

1. The easiest path (does that mean, the best outcome?)
2. The trading knowledge path (figuring out a trading plan)
3. The most predictable/duplicate outcome path

As to date, I haven't heard of anyone who has finally found a successful workflow using the easiest path (maybe someone did and hence doesn't need to be active in the forum cos too busy with his own success).  A successful workflow whereby if I were to follow all the steps and procedures, the final generated EA list will contain a certain percentage of winning strategies in live/demo/nano account.

I wonder anyone has a proven workflow that can yield a certain percentage of success rate.  So that every time I ran another batch of generated EA, with certain data horizon, with certain OOS % and certain MM or MC or whatever the workflow is, I'm sure that I'll get for an example 30% success rate, etc.

If anyone has found such successful workflow, please share with us your successful workflow or concepts behind your development process.

As for me, by default I choose to "trader's knowledge" path many years ago.  Reason being I already have a trading plan that I want to execute.  Secondly during the early years of FSB, I don't find any success in generating etc (probably due to bugs and how the backtest handle previous bar value, etc).  Hence, I choose the trader's input path cos I feel I can get better outcome than the generated path.  FSB has gone through numerous update and thus I've yet to find out whether with the new update, I'll get better results from the generated one.  As I'm too busy with my current work path.  I don't have the time or resources to venture the "easiest" path.  I'll be happy to hear from others who have succeed and would like to share how to replicate this success again and again.

That's why out of curiosity to see how well FSB can churn out EA, I decided to do a mini experiment (before I ever venture to this easiest path) and download EA made by FSB Online Generator (this product has been removed from website).  Currently this batch of EA is still undergoing demo testing.  The initial results was 4 good and profitable EA out of 49 (nearly 10% success rate).  I've created a 2nd batch with added trialing.  Now I've about 20 good and profitable EA out of 98, that's about 20% success rate.  I must say that if I'm a new user, this is a very tempting path to take (why not, with such minimal effort, I get 20% success rate).  At such success rate, I would probably choose this path.  I don't know why this product has been removed.  And I'm not sure how is it different from EA Studio's generator or are they the same.  If they are, are users experiencing such consistent success rate?

Another reason why I stick to this trader's path is because I feel I'm in control of the outcome.  I heard people sharing their tried the "easiest" path but without any much success and somewhere along the line, they feel very "lost", out of control as if what else can they do to make it right.  I don't like those feeling, it's frustrating for me.  Whereas for the Trader's path, I feel I can create a certain percentage of success.  At the end of each workflow, I'm "guaranteed" a certain number of profitable EA.  It's nice to have an expected outcome.  And I feel I'm in control because i can observe the trading patterns and see what new rules I can add to improve it further.  Yes, there are lots of trial and errors too but at least I know my efforts are never in vain.  That is why I like to take the road less traveled.

PS:
If I were to generate EA, I would try to demo test as much EA as I can from the list.  Reason being, the top EA may not be the "best" selection.

It's like a bell curve distribution.  The tail end of each of the distribution may represent either "off sync" EA vs "curve fitted" EA.  Hence my hunch is that those in the middle are the ones that hit the "optimal" setting.  Neither off sync nor over curve fitted.

Hannah

Re: Indicators...

I would agree there are different types of traders.  However, I do not understand how a member of this forum could discourage a new user from using the software in ways it was designed and intended -- furthermore, I think it does a disservice.  If someone does not trust the software, then why use it?

I do not have hannahis' experience or knowledge and I am not interested in spending years acquiring it prior to trading.  I want to trade now.  Over time we all learn and become wiser traders.  I have been successful using both FSB Pro and EA Studio, and others have as well.  However, I don't think there exists a particular recipe that guarantees success.

araza wrote:

I am using my broker data. So what you are saying is that I should lets say create a strategy for EURUSD using H1 and test it on M15 or a lower time frame?

No.  A strategy created for EURUSD H1 should be traded on EURUSD H1.  A strategy created for EURUSD H4 should be traded on EURUSD H4.  What I meant is that a number of experienced traders prefer the higher time frames -- I think it is because they have greater confidence in the data used to generate, optimize and back test strategies.  It is less noisy and contains fewer false signals.

Re: Indicators...

hannahis wrote:

As to date, I haven't heard of anyone who has finally found a successful workflow using the easiest path (maybe someone did and hence doesn't need to be active in the forum cos too busy with his own success).

Algorithmic trading is relatively new. I do believe there are probably people out there who have developed a structure and workflow that will allow them to generate randomly and achieve good results. However, I also believe these same people have:

1. Put a LOT of time and effort into finding this workflow, and
2. Put a LOT of ongoing effort into the testing and maintenance of their generated EAs.

I personally don't believe there will be an ultra-simple workflow that will allow us to press the START button and with minimal effort obtain a whole bunch of awesome, profitable strategies.

To develop a sufficient workflow, we will need to work as a community in a methodical way. "Trial and Error" just won't cut it, because the data we are working with is just too random and our sample sizes are too small (relatively speaking).

It's very easy to come up with all sorts of AWESOME looking strategies with EA Studio/FSB. But the problem is that the software is looking through so many strategies, that it WILL continually find patterns where there are no patterns. Or perhaps portions of these EAs are valid, but some of the indicators are simply noise.

How are we to tell the difference between a "valid" and profitable strategy (i.e. one that generates profits in the future predictably) and a strategy that was developed on a false pattern that doesn't really exist.

As a (admittedly stupid) example, consider the fabulous "when it rains in Kansas City" indicator that I've just developed. This indicator reads "TRUE" on days that it rains in Kansas City and "FALSE" on days that it does not. You are super-excited about this new indicator and fire it up in FSB, using it to generate in conjunction with all the other available indicators.

And...OMG...it generates 100 VERY nice looking profitable EAs within 24 hours.

But something surprising happens when you put these EAs on your live trading server for four months: 80% fail to make money! And they looked so good...

But wait, you say, I still have 15% of my strategies left over! That's awesome! If I can generate 15 winning strategies in a day like this, there is not limit to the wealth I can gain in one year!

You might say, well that's just stupid. That's a totally made up example and it's blatantly obvious to any idiot that this worthless indicator that you're touting isn't going to work worth a damn. And you would be 100% correct.

And, you might say, there's NO WAY that 20% of those EAs you generated would be profitable over the span of four months. I mean, if they are making a sufficient number of trades, that is...say, at least 40 trades.

Aha, there you are WRONG. It is entirely possible, and most likely probable, that 20% of those strategies would show profit over four months. But wait, this is basically a totally random indicator. The FOREX markets don't care if it rains in Kansas City; they won't be affected by that event one bit. No, they won't, that is correct. However, the indicators that they are combined with are not totally random and will yield "some" counterbalance to this stupid indicator.

So why not just remove this indicator that we were so excited about and once again just rely on the default indicators? Well, yes, that is certainly better. But how much better? I would venture to say you would increase your success rate to about 25%. So is 25% "better"? I would say, not really.

Yes, I don't have hard data...but 25% success, 35% success, there really is little difference. The problem is: how are you to know WHICH 25% will perform profitably during that four month span? Unless you develop a better methodology, you won't. It's impossible.

So why not wait and see which ones are profitable after four months, and VIOLA! You have your winning strategies! This might be part of the equation, but it's still not nearly sufficient, as some (many) of those remaining strategies will still be randomly profitable and not viable for future profit.

So just weed them out as they prove that they are not profitable. Again, I am quite certain (no, not 100%...) that this will not work without more in depth workflow. At any given time, you will not have enough (future) profitable strategies remaining to offset the losses you will incur with the ones that will lose money.

As Hannah said above, if the truly "simple" method of EA generation and deployment worked, we'd have more than one rich person bragging about their accomplishments around here (or on forums of similar products). Yes, it's true that some would be closed-mouth, but they would likely be the ones who are much more methodical and thoughtful about the way they approach the softwares--someone who has developed a workflow with much concerted effort.

There are so attempting the "easy" methods that SOMEBODY would have found the "magic bullet" by now.

And, no, I'm not attempting to discourage anybody from using the software. I'm just saying we need to be digging a lot deeper than we are with a methodical approach.

Also as Hannah says, I doubt that anyone can demonstrate a repeatable "success" with simple generation methods. And I think we can all agree that "success" means dependable profits. (Actually, that is not entirely true...autotradingacademy.com is getting rich off the notion!)

I know of one trading group who has done quite well in the last year+ with another software (inferior to FSB). But this trading group has added a LOT of proprietary code, programmed extensive analysis tools, and developed a workflow that they are (reasonably) unwilling to share with the rest of the community.

11 (edited by sleytus 2017-09-08 00:24:25)

Re: Indicators...

qattack wrote:

So why not wait and see which ones are profitable after four months, and VIOLA! You have your winning strategies! This might be part of the equation, but it's still not nearly sufficient, as some (many) of those remaining strategies will still be randomly profitable and not viable for future profit.

We've had this discussion before.  There is a misconception here.  The data set is constantly changing -- so, you will never know in advance which 25% of your strategies will be the profitable ones -- never.  No matter how long you test.  No matter what your workflow is.  This is just a variation of the holy grail mentality.  What about the tens of thousands of traders that have gone before us for the past 90 years?  Were they all so clueless they couldn't figure it out?

All strategies use settings -- which are simply numbers.  Where do these numbers come from?  They are either default values or they were computed during strategy generation and optimization (and this applies to both hand-coded and auto-generated strategies).  The result is every strategy is curve-fitted / optimized / trained against a particular data set.  As soon as that data set changes, then your strategy no longer fits well with the current, incoming data.

A strategy is like the equation for a straight line:  y = mx + b.  Given some data points you can compute the best m, b to fit the data points.  But when the data points change, then your original m,b no longer work so well.  m,b are the parameter settings to your indicators.  If you could dynamically compute the best m, b for the current, incoming data then you might be on to something -- that way your strategy would continuously be adapting to the new data.  Software that can do that may not be so far off -- or it may already exist but not available to individual traders.

This is truly amazing software that Popov has created.  When a new user asks questions then encourage them to explore the software and become familiar with its capabilities.  Encourage them to find their own way -- rather than pushing your particular approach or workflow -- especially one where you have no evidence that it is any better than all the other ones people have tried.

Re: Indicators...

I thank you all for your detailed and eloquently worded opinions. You have no idea how grateful I am to hear such points of view as I am learning so much from my seniors.

I will continue to bother all of you to learn further and share my experiences along this journey

Hannah
Looking at moving averages....hopefully will get something out of it.

Regards,

13 (edited by hannahis 2017-09-08 09:12:58)

Re: Indicators...

It's one thing to encourage a person and it's another thing to provide some reality check.

A person who has high hopes yet not grounded with realism will soon be crushed, disillusioned. 

There is a need for check and balance.  To say how good the software is and yet not providing it's limitations is giving false hope.  If I were to give some form of reality check, I'm deemed as discouraging others?  If I'm here to discourage others, why would I bother to be here to give tips and tricks?

I'm definitely a strong supporter of FSB, I'm here longer than most of you and been through all the ups and downs.  Sticking with the software since it's easier developmental stage when it was still full of bugs.  Giving constant feedback for improvements and added features (like a button to close all opened files instead of one by one, like the export button to compile all opened files to EA, etc).  I don't think anyone who know me long enough will ever question my loyalty.  But I'm not a blind supporter who will praise the software without critic it's limitations.  Popov knows very well, I'm one of the best supporter and also at the same time his worst critic.  I often critic the software (with the aim to make it better).  Complacency is the 1st step toward being obsoleted and it breeds pride, thinking we are good enough to stay in the top.

Why I like Popov (or FSB) because he never ever thinking of taking a break and sit back to "enjoy" his success.  He is committed to keep improving the software. So you know there is a good "future" because the software keeps getting better and better.  I'm here to contribute ideas of how I would like it to be my ideal software.  And despite our differences, we respect each other mutually and we don't take things personally.  We know both of us have a greater and common goal, to make FSB a better software.

Yes, Araza, try whatever method that is best suited for you and match your level of time and energy commitment. 


PS: John, the simple MA does work if one is "patient" enough to try out all the different combination settings.  The trading concept is really that "simple" but the procedure to develop it is tedious (provided with the correct parameters and combination settings).  I'm not speaking out of theory, I personally tested it out to make sure that if I ever going to teach people about the theory, I wanted to make sure it also worked out in actualities.  After I tried it out, I'm equally surprise how come others didn't try or speak about their success.  Or is it more an issue of "how' they tried but didn't find the "correct" work flow.

The reason I suspect is that most don't find success in the "simple" concept is because the steps are too tedious and require much patience.  Many people think all they need to do is put in the "correct" parameters and voila! it works.  Unfortunately, it is not so simple procedure.  There is a certain "workflow" of going through the various combinations to search for the optimal setting, which I wished such "workflow" can be automated.  I believe (and assumed) that if the "simple" MA theory can be profitable, so will most other sound theory, hence the issue seem to lie in "getting" the right combination setting as the primary key to success.  That's for sure.  I can developed 2 same (parameter) EA, yet with different combinations, one is profitable and the other failed miserably.  So again, I've experimented it and hence I'm speaking from experience, not assumptions. 


PS: Steve, whatever I share, I believe most readers have an independent mind to choose and make their own decisions.  Just because I share certain path more strongly (based on my own personal experience) doesn't mean I'm imposing my views or method of them.  I'm not as powerful as that.  I can't impose a view on someone.  Who is here that can be controlled by me just because I share certain view strongly?  No one can define you, unless you allow that person to do so.  We can't blame others if we allow ourselves to be compelled.  We are in charge of our decisions.  If a person is weak in will, is it fair of him/her to blame others for having a strong will?  If someone likes my sharing, I'm deemed as helpful and if they don't like my sharing, I'm accused as imposing.  I'm confused cos I won't know when it's helpful and when it's imposing.  The responsibility lies in the reader, not me.

Hannah

Re: Indicators...

Hannah
Like I said earlier that I am really learning a lot form your posts as they dont leave anything to imagination..very detailed and explain everything nicely..I follow you other posts as well and appreciate the time you take to draft them.
I would hope that you would continue to give your opinions..I am sure that it is valued and I am sure you also appreciate people challenging your approach to trading.
Forums such as these are meant for such discussions.
Thanks

15 (edited by hannahis 2017-09-08 10:55:32)

Re: Indicators...

Yes, I totally agree that the forum is for friendly and respectful discussion without labeling or discrediting another.  As there are many paths to success.

Who am I to disqualified another person's experience? 

To some, FSB is a "lousy" tool and to another, it's a great tools.  That's according to each's (limited) experience.  By sharing our experience, hopefully others can widen their perspectives or re-examine their work flow to explore other possibilities.

To me, I can build profitable EA out of it (in fact I've thousands of profitable EA) but I don't have to give it to anyone just to prove my point.  There is nothing to prove here.  Whether a person believe me or not is non essential to me. I'm still here because I still have lots of features I would like FSB to add to improve my trading performance....and while I'm here I'll try to shorten anyone learning curve with my own learning experience.

At the same time, if someone who have found success in the strategy generated path, I'll be very happy to learn from him/her the successful workflow and thereby shorten my learning curve too.

Hannah

16 (edited by hannahis 2017-09-08 12:17:29)

Re: Indicators...

sleytus wrote:

We've had this discussion before.  There is a misconception here.  The data set is constantly changing -- so, you will never know in advance which 25% of your strategies will be the profitable ones -- never.  No matter how long you test.  No matter what your workflow is.  This is just a variation of the holy grail mentality.  What about the tens of thousands of traders that have gone before us for the past 90 years?  Were they all so clueless they couldn't figure it out?

All strategies use settings -- which are simply numbers.  Where do these numbers come from?  They are either default values or they were computed during strategy generation and optimization (and this applies to both hand-coded and auto-generated strategies).  The result is every strategy is curve-fitted / optimized / trained against a particular data set.  As soon as that data set changes, then your strategy no longer fits well with the current, incoming data.

A strategy is like the equation for a straight line:  y = mx + b.  Given some data points you can compute the best m, b to fit the data points.  But when the data points change, then your original m,b no longer work so well.  m,b are the parameter settings to your indicators. .


Data is changing all the time but the whole idea of data crunching is to discover whether there are any Repeatable Patterns.

X = y + 5.  If X is my age and y is John's age, then no matter how much John's age (data) change, one can know my age, X. 

Likewise, our algo EA is to determine and find such repeatable patterns so that no matter how price changes, there is a relationship or probability of where the trend direction will go.

If data is constantly changing and yet the software doesn't have capability to spot repeatable patterns from these raw data, then what's the whole point of putting our data through vigorous testing only to find out what worked in the past but couldn't identify any repeatable patterns?

Secondly, for the past 90 years people are still clueless?  Can't be, haven't we read many successful stories of companies who employed Phd and mathematicians, what for?  These people can see/spot "relationships" behind numbers.  Does that mean they will share their secret formula so that the rest of us will stop fumbling around and remain clueless.  Well, they probably would be happy to let you remind clueless cos your loss is their gain.  Forex is a zero sum game. As much as I would like to shorten a person's learning curve but will I then share with another person my successful EA so as to stop him from being clueless?  To those who are clueless, they will remain clueless.   But to those who believe there is a relationship pattern behind these data, they will find what they are looking for.

Thirdly, data are just data, they don't carry any rules with them, they can't think and make decisions.  It takes an intelligent master mind to come up with a concept of organising/crunching these data to search for repeatable patterns.  So how successful a software is depending on how the developer design ways to crunch these data into meaning relationships.  People just buy software and expect it to work.  For me, now before I buy another software, I write to the people and ask them more about how they handle their data and do their backtesting.  I question the working and methodology behind the backtest to know whether it will work.  No one seem to ever ask that kind of questions.  Not all backtest tools are designed the same.  It depends a lot on the developer's trading concepts too.  That's why software that are designed by traders will have that added advantages compare to one purely developed by a computer scientist.  A software is only the Brain child of the developer.  So it's a human telling the computer what to do with these data, hence is such person perfect, is he a successful trader to know what kind of rules to apply for better quantitative and qualitative search?  Likewise, how the software optimise the EA, I'm curious too cos I've my own concept of what makes a good optimisation tool.  What make us think that the developer's concept is better than ours?  What's the rationale behind the optimising concepts? Is such method really the best way to optimise an EA?  That's why I question so that together we can test out each other's theory and concepts and hopefully refine the procedure better for greater success.

Hence the whole idea of this software is to let the software apply some rules and see whether given such rules, the EA will be profitable in the past and if such rules are dependable and repeatable patterns of profitable and not due to luck or random chance, then we have greater success rate.  That's why I choose the trader's path because I can input my own version of "repeatable" patterns (instead of letting the software search for me) and hence have good success rate.

I'm not saying the FSB can't generate or find for you repeatable patterns (I believe it can, otherwise why would I be doing the FSB Online Generator project).  I'm saying that since I already found my own repeatable patterns, I don't need to rely (re-invented the wheels) on FSB to search for me anymore.  Similarly, if those who wanted to try to input repeatable patterns (instead of keep doing random searching), they can then try using the simple MA concept as their 1st repeatable patterns.  I raise this up because some people think simple MA theory is too simple it may not work/profitable.  But I'm sharing it worked for me (but does that mean I have to upload my EA just to prove my point? I'm not going to give my "treasures away but I won't mind pointing to people the direction where the treasure is hidden), hoping that people don't find it daunting to try out this trader's path for lack of any good trading theory.


Lastly to those who are testing out your FSB EA during this August, just to give my own (limited) observation, if your EA fail please don't think it means it is a bad EA.  Don't discard your EA prematurely.  It's a technicality issue vs fundamental issue.

Our EA are based on technical analysis.  Hence it doesn't take into account (to certain extend) fundamental issues that went against market forces.  However fundamental issues does affect the price volatility and prices changes.  And because of the prolong fundamental issues to suppress the USD and not like the usual market demand and supply determine the price levels/cycle, thus such external intervention (other than market forces of demand and supply) is "disrupting" the "normal" behaviour of our indicators. Causing many if not most (laggy indicators) to constantly enter wrongly.

Instead of the usual peak and trough, we get unusual and prolong peak (for EUR against USD) and normally when H4/D1 indicator changed, it would have been a "reasonable" trend that bring in good profit but because of the intervention to suppress the USD, such trend change is only short lived and for laggy indicators, it resulted to "false" signals. 

From my observation, I decided to change my approach and now developing shorter term EA so that it will stay "relevant" at all times.

Hannah

Re: Indicators...

hannahis wrote:

Why I like Popov (or FSB) because he never ever thinking of taking a break and sit back to "enjoy" his success.  He is committed to keep improving the software. So you know there is a good "future" because the software keeps getting better and better.  I'm here to contribute ideas of how I would like it to be my ideal software.  And despite our differences, we respect each other mutually and we don't take things personally.  We know both of us have a greater and common goal, to make FSB a better software.

This is a primary reason why I bought FSB (and EA Studio). I'm not content with just purchasing a software and using it "as is", dreaming that it's already "good enough" to accomplish my goals. Instead, I saw an opportunity to help shape the software with whatever input I can provide. Ultimately, of course, it is Popov's decision what may be useful additions to the software, and I trust him to consider what is presented and make the best choice, since he best knows the potential of the software.

Without suggestions or varied ideas, the software would not continue to grow. As a general statement, it's of no use to continually praise ideas or inventions or software, but not lobby for changes that could make it better. I'm sure Popov is not in this for an ego trip; rather, he welcomes continued suggestions, ideas, and criticisms. This sets his mind in motion for his future improvements.

Of course, everyone enjoys praise for their efforts. But praise alone really doesn't help anything. New ideas and healthy debate do.

hannahis wrote:

PS: John, the simple MA does work if one is "patient" enough to try out all the different combination settings.  The trading concept is really that "simple" but the procedure to develop it is tedious (provided with the correct parameters and combination settings).  I'm not speaking out of theory, I personally tested it out to make sure that if I ever going to teach people about the theory, I wanted to make sure it also worked out in actualities.  After I tried it out, I'm equally surprise how come others didn't try or speak about their success.  Or is it more an issue of "how' they tried but didn't find the "correct" work flow.

The reason I suspect is that most don't find success in the "simple" concept is because the steps are too tedious and require much patience.  Many people think all they need to do is put in the "correct" parameters and voila! it works.  Unfortunately, it is not so simple procedure.

Yes, I wasn't talking about the "sophistication" of the end strategy. However, in your example, it took a lot of work and effort to arrive at your "simple" strategy. The end strategies need not be complex, but the methods to find those (winning) strategies while eliminating the false ones most likely will take a good deal of effort.

And actually, all that people DO need to do is put in the "correct" parameters, but how do you find them in the first place and how do you know they are "correct"? That is the puzzle to be solved.