Ok, been at this for a few years now and have come to the point where I am playing/developing an EA, well, testing and fine-tuning one anyway.
I hear alot about why MT4 optimization is a waste of time as it is just line fitting and anyone after enough iterations can create a money maker. Ok, I get that. I also hear people talking about auto opts to keep the EA or system "up to date".
Right now my little project can make money but the modelling quality is anywhere from 40% to 70% and I'm only getting an average of 30% -45% of trades. The reason I'm still showing profit is money management and filtering bad trades. So less than 50% modelling and less than 50% winning average AND it's an MA crossover idea and it is still possible to make money over a 19 month backtest.
I'm confused but I know this -- anything is possible and anything can make money as long as it suits one's style and it minimizes losses and maximizes gains. It need not be any more complicated than that.
My question is what does this mean? I will test it with pennies in a real account but I'm wondering is the fact that it can make some money even with poor modelling a better sign than making a ton of money while highly optimized? What is to be trusted ? I know, neither because history does not neccesarily equate to the future but I am comforted by the fact that it has been through both trending and ranging periods. Is that not the best test -- how it does over varied market conditions?
Your thoughts very much appreaciated.....
I hear alot about why MT4 optimization is a waste of time as it is just line fitting and anyone after enough iterations can create a money maker. Ok, I get that. I also hear people talking about auto opts to keep the EA or system "up to date".
Right now my little project can make money but the modelling quality is anywhere from 40% to 70% and I'm only getting an average of 30% -45% of trades. The reason I'm still showing profit is money management and filtering bad trades. So less than 50% modelling and less than 50% winning average AND it's an MA crossover idea and it is still possible to make money over a 19 month backtest.
I'm confused but I know this -- anything is possible and anything can make money as long as it suits one's style and it minimizes losses and maximizes gains. It need not be any more complicated than that.
My question is what does this mean? I will test it with pennies in a real account but I'm wondering is the fact that it can make some money even with poor modelling a better sign than making a ton of money while highly optimized? What is to be trusted ? I know, neither because history does not neccesarily equate to the future but I am comforted by the fact that it has been through both trending and ranging periods. Is that not the best test -- how it does over varied market conditions?
Your thoughts very much appreaciated.....