MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
MultiCharts 12.0 Release 4 builds 17488 (x32) / 17490 (x64) is out now!
You can check the change log in our blog.
Go to Download page
You can check the change log in our blog.
Go to Download page
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: Data Playback?
LRP, data playback works on our end. Please provide more details regarding the specific issue you have, or come to the live chat to demonstrate it remotely.Dear Support
At my site, Data Playback do not work anymore.
What happens?
Thank you very much and kind regards
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
wegi, as specified in Release 3 thread - we are currently checking it. I will let you know as soon as there are any updates.Tested the option "Format -> display entire series".
It does not work in release 4, as my last post in release 3.
i am not able to see 1 year of 5 minute data, i get an scrollbar.
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
wegi, please follow the recommendation in this post.wegi, as specified in Release 3 thread - we are currently checking it. I will let you know as soon as there are any updates.Tested the option "Format -> display entire series".
It does not work in release 4, as my last post in release 3.
i am not able to see 1 year of 5 minute data, i get an scrollbar.
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
automaton, this build will become available in the "Check for Updates" feature next week. You can manually download it from our website now.I got no update notifications for release 4. Checking for updates shows message “You have most current version”. I’m still running release 3.
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
In MC12....... If you fat finger an optimization space input, you can no longer just press "cancel" and then reopen the "optimization settings" and start again. Now, it automatically stores whatever entry you input.
I feel pressing "x" or "cancel" should always revert any changes to previously saved. If MC insists on such behaviour, maybe only pressing the new "previous" tab should save changes?
If I make a mess of things, it a computing norm to be able to quickly roll back (ctrl+z, or cancel and don't save etc etc).
I feel pressing "x" or "cancel" should always revert any changes to previously saved. If MC insists on such behaviour, maybe only pressing the new "previous" tab should save changes?
If I make a mess of things, it a computing norm to be able to quickly roll back (ctrl+z, or cancel and don't save etc etc).
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 27 Jul 2010
- Location: Switzerland
- Has thanked: 3 times
- Been thanked: 8 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
And please correct this:
1. In the optimization window: "Average fithness ..." =>> "Average fitness ...".
2. In the optimization report: the chaotic mix of the columns (% Profitable, input1, Avg Trade, input2, input3, Avg Bars in Loser, ...). If i have a lot of inputs to optimiz, in the optimization report the columns are very chaotic. As it was in MC 11 and it shoud be: First all the statistic columns and then all the input columns, but no mix of them.
1. In the optimization window: "Average fithness ..." =>> "Average fitness ...".
2. In the optimization report: the chaotic mix of the columns (% Profitable, input1, Avg Trade, input2, input3, Avg Bars in Loser, ...). If i have a lot of inputs to optimiz, in the optimization report the columns are very chaotic. As it was in MC 11 and it shoud be: First all the statistic columns and then all the input columns, but no mix of them.
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
I'm running tests on MC12r4 optimizer.
Can MC provide some clarifications on some of the new settings. At face value there seems to be an error somewhere with the core allocation feature.
Just as a reminder on the GA incremental behaviour:
viewtopic.php?t=51229
I think it is very cool to now be able to select the number of population members to be crossed over per generation: If you remember generations can't be run in parallel, whereas backtests on offspring from the crossover process can be. So, from my understanding, if this is set to "2" the following should happen between generations (for an incremental GA):
1) 2 Children are generated (from the best individuals), upon which 2 backtests are run (1 per child)
2) These children are evaluated and placed into the population, replacing the worst. This creates our new generation
3) The above 2 steps are repeated.
Unfortunately these steps have to happen sequentially and not in parallel (otherwise there would be no evolutionary improvement, it would just be random).
So, I'm wondering why all 8 of my logical processors are kept busy and not just 2 of them, eventhough I've specified 2 in the settings?
Is the slider overriding my initial setting? Ie I've chosen "2", but thats being immediately replaced with "8" once the optimisation starts? Thanks in advance.
Can MC provide some clarifications on some of the new settings. At face value there seems to be an error somewhere with the core allocation feature.
Just as a reminder on the GA incremental behaviour:
viewtopic.php?t=51229
I think it is very cool to now be able to select the number of population members to be crossed over per generation: If you remember generations can't be run in parallel, whereas backtests on offspring from the crossover process can be. So, from my understanding, if this is set to "2" the following should happen between generations (for an incremental GA):
1) 2 Children are generated (from the best individuals), upon which 2 backtests are run (1 per child)
2) These children are evaluated and placed into the population, replacing the worst. This creates our new generation
3) The above 2 steps are repeated.
Unfortunately these steps have to happen sequentially and not in parallel (otherwise there would be no evolutionary improvement, it would just be random).
So, I'm wondering why all 8 of my logical processors are kept busy and not just 2 of them, eventhough I've specified 2 in the settings?
Is the slider overriding my initial setting? Ie I've chosen "2", but thats being immediately replaced with "8" once the optimisation starts? Thanks in advance.
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
In addition to my last post, I've found another error in the optimizer:
For an incremental GA, the number of tests to be conducted= Initial_population + (Generation*Children).
Children meaning the number of individuals to be crossed over between generations.
E.g. 200+(600*2) = 1400 runs.
The error I've uncovered:
If children>logical processors then the optimizer ignores the user defined value and reverts to the last setting used that was <=logical processors (or max logical processors if there was no last accepted setting). A pretty bizarre outcome.
No error/warning message notifies the user that their input wasn't accepted. Neither can I think of a reason why it can't be accepted......
If I want 80 children; then the optimiser simply has to perform 80 backtests before proceeding to the next generation, no? Does it matter if I have less than 80 logical processors? Surely it can be done sequentially (batches of 8, 10 cycles) until completed? The handling of this event is also pretty weird.
Let me know if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
For an incremental GA, the number of tests to be conducted= Initial_population + (Generation*Children).
Children meaning the number of individuals to be crossed over between generations.
E.g. 200+(600*2) = 1400 runs.
The error I've uncovered:
If children>logical processors then the optimizer ignores the user defined value and reverts to the last setting used that was <=logical processors (or max logical processors if there was no last accepted setting). A pretty bizarre outcome.
No error/warning message notifies the user that their input wasn't accepted. Neither can I think of a reason why it can't be accepted......
If I want 80 children; then the optimiser simply has to perform 80 backtests before proceeding to the next generation, no? Does it matter if I have less than 80 logical processors? Surely it can be done sequentially (batches of 8, 10 cycles) until completed? The handling of this event is also pretty weird.
Let me know if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
I believe the Basic GA is also wrong (but could be mistaken). Number of runs seems wrong relative to Population and Generation sizes.
E.g. If I set 10 and 10 respectively; I get 125 runs.
Can't work that out. Is it an error?
E.g. If I set 10 and 10 respectively; I get 125 runs.
Can't work that out. Is it an error?
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
I like how optimization reports are now automatically saved with a date and time stamp to a folder using the "Optimization Result Visualizer64" file format.
Is there a way to specify where they are saved? At the moment all reports are going to my Documents folder. Would be useful to be able to specify this.
It would also be great if this new "Optimization Result Visualizer64" functionality was extended to PT too. What I particularly like about it is that when you open a report you now have the "strategy info" icon in the top right which allows the user to check their results against the space that was searched. Very cool and would be awesome to have in portfolio trader.
Would also be great to have optimization reports load up with opened PT files; if the user has specified it in MC preferences (ie extend the same functionality that now exists within MC).
Obviously the new MC's GAO is now different to the older PT GAO. Just curious if extending the newer GAO to PT is on the roadmap?
Is there a way to specify where they are saved? At the moment all reports are going to my Documents folder. Would be useful to be able to specify this.
It would also be great if this new "Optimization Result Visualizer64" functionality was extended to PT too. What I particularly like about it is that when you open a report you now have the "strategy info" icon in the top right which allows the user to check their results against the space that was searched. Very cool and would be awesome to have in portfolio trader.
Would also be great to have optimization reports load up with opened PT files; if the user has specified it in MC preferences (ie extend the same functionality that now exists within MC).
Obviously the new MC's GAO is now different to the older PT GAO. Just curious if extending the newer GAO to PT is on the roadmap?
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
I've spent the day playing with the new MC12 WFA and can see a couple of improvements that would be great.
1) If we fail to find a "fit" In-Sample permutation; then skip the OOS run and proceed to next In-Sample optimisation. In the above example my best returned fitness function value is zero. Ie nothing was found. When nothing is found; MC then chooses a random set of inputs instead for the OOS run. I would certainly not got live with a random set of inputs for my signal, if that signal could not be fitted to the in sample dataset.
I recommend adding a "greater than" value when the user is setting up the WFA. For the fitness function I used above that would be "0". But other users might want to specify values (e.g. If using Net Profit...... >$10,000).
2) It would be great if the user could specify which metrics to be included in the WFA report. Just like they can with a GAO. I can't speak for other users but I only use about 5 metrics. Being able to only choose 5 for the report would dramatically declutter it.
Thanks!
1) If we fail to find a "fit" In-Sample permutation; then skip the OOS run and proceed to next In-Sample optimisation. In the above example my best returned fitness function value is zero. Ie nothing was found. When nothing is found; MC then chooses a random set of inputs instead for the OOS run. I would certainly not got live with a random set of inputs for my signal, if that signal could not be fitted to the in sample dataset.
I recommend adding a "greater than" value when the user is setting up the WFA. For the fitness function I used above that would be "0". But other users might want to specify values (e.g. If using Net Profit...... >$10,000).
2) It would be great if the user could specify which metrics to be included in the WFA report. Just like they can with a GAO. I can't speak for other users but I only use about 5 metrics. Being able to only choose 5 for the report would dramatically declutter it.
Thanks!
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
I've just noticed that Portfolio Trader has a similar issue but for WFAs (both GAO and Brute Force)....... it is calculating too many runs to be backtested. Consequently it means, any form of PT WFA based optimization, takes significantly longer than the MC10 that I'm comparing it too.I believe the Basic GA is also wrong (but could be mistaken). Number of runs seems wrong relative to Population and Generation sizes.
E.g. If I set 10 and 10 respectively; I get 125 runs.
Can't work that out. Is it an error?
I'll share some files with support so that they can reproduce.
The files will demonstrate how a Brute Force WFA (13 IS:OOS runs) search in a space of 64 permutations shows as needing 909 runs in MC12, vs what I make it: 13*(64+1) = 845 (same as MC10).
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
wilkinsw, thanks for your feedback. After discussing it internally:
We will have it implemented in the next update.In MC12....... If you fat finger an optimization space input, you can no longer just press "cancel" and then reopen the "optimization settings" and start again. Now, it automatically stores whatever entry you input.
I feel pressing "x" or "cancel" should always revert any changes to previously saved. If MC insists on such behaviour, maybe only pressing the new "previous" tab should save changes?
If I make a mess of things, it a computing norm to be able to quickly roll back (ctrl+z, or cancel and don't save etc etc).
We will have the message corrected in the next update.In MC12's Optimizer I've got a conflicting message:
Is it best or average? Presumably not both??
We are going to add that option in the next major platform update.I like how optimization reports are now automatically saved with a date and time stamp to a folder using the "Optimization Result Visualizer64" file format.
Is there a way to specify where they are saved? At the moment all reports are going to my Documents folder. Would be useful to be able to specify this.
This is something that we consider adding to our roadmap for one of the future versions.It would also be great if this new "Optimization Result Visualizer64" functionality was extended to PT too. What I particularly like about it is that when you open a report you now have the "strategy info" icon in the top right which allows the user to check their results against the space that was searched. Very cool and would be awesome to have in portfolio trader
This functionality may appear in one of the future versions.Would also be great to have optimization reports load up with opened PT files; if the user has specified it in MC preferences (ie extend the same functionality that now exists within MC). Obviously the new MC's GAO is now different to the older PT GAO. Just curious if extending the newer GAO to PT is on the roadmap?
This functionality may appear in one of the future versions.I've spent the day playing with the new MC12 WFA and can see a couple of improvements that would be great.
1) If we fail to find a "fit" In-Sample permutation; then skip the OOS run and proceed to next In-Sample optimisation.
In the above example my best returned fitness function value is zero. Ie nothing was found. When nothing is found; MC then chooses a random set of inputs instead for the OOS run. I would certainly not got live with a random set of inputs for my signal, if that signal could not be fitted to the in sample dataset.
I recommend adding a "greater than" value when the user is setting up the WFA. For the fitness function I used above that would be "0". But other users might want to specify values (e.g. If using Net Profit...... >$10,000).
We'll try to fit it into the roadmap for the next major version.2) It would be great if the user could specify which metrics to be included in the WFA report. Just like they can with a GAO. I can't speak for other users but I only use about 5 metrics. Being able to only choose 5 for the report would dramatically declutter it. Thanks!
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
In this specific case all cores are used only for the calculation of the first population of 136571 individuals.I'm running tests on MC12r4 optimizer.
Can MC provide some clarifications on some of the new settings. At face value there seems to be an error somewhere with the core allocation feature.
Just as a reminder on the GA incremental behaviour:
viewtopic.php?t=51229
I think it is very cool to now be able to select the number of population members to be crossed over per generation:
If you remember generations can't be run in parallel, whereas backtests on offspring from the crossover process can be. So, from my understanding, if this is set to "2" the following should happen between generations (for an incremental GA):
1) 2 Children are generated (from the best individuals), upon which 2 backtests are run (1 per child)
2) These children are evaluated and placed into the population, replacing the worst. This creates our new generation
3) The above 2 steps are repeated.
Unfortunately these steps have to happen sequentially and not in parallel (otherwise there would be no evolutionary improvement, it would just be random).
So, I'm wondering why all 8 of my logical processors are kept busy and not just 2 of them, eventhough I've specified 2 in the settings?
Is the slider overriding my initial setting? Ie I've chosen "2", but thats being immediately replaced with "8" once the optimisation starts?
Core setting overridden.PNG
Thanks in advance.
As soon as the calculation of this population is complete, two cores will be used for further calculations, as the optimizer cannot move to the next generation before 2 children from the current generation are calculated.
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
The incremental algorithm produces worse results with an increase in the number of children.In addition to my last post, I've found another error in the optimizer:
For an incremental GA, the number of tests to be conducted= Initial_population + (Generation*Children).
Children meaning the number of individuals to be crossed over between generations.
E.g. 200+(600*2) = 1400 runs.
The error I've uncovered:
If children>logical processors then the optimizer ignores the user defined value and reverts to the last setting used that was <=logical processors (or max logical processors if there was no last accepted setting). A pretty bizarre outcome.
No error/warning message notifies the user that their input wasn't accepted. Neither can I think of a reason why it can't be accepted......
If I want 80 children; then the optimiser simply has to perform 80 backtests before proceeding to the next generation, no? Does it matter if I have less than 80 logical processors? Surely it can be done sequentially (batches of 8, 10 cycles) until completed? The handling of this event is also pretty weird.
Let me know if I've got the wrong end of the stick.
Original algorithm implies only two children, therefore it shows the best convergence with two children.
The ability of increasing the number of the children up to the number of CPU cores was provided to get the results faster in the expense of quality.
Increasing the number of children more than the number of cores has no use since it won’t improve the speed and in the general case will produce worse results in comparison with the optimization with fewer children.
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
I believe the Basic GA is also wrong (but could be mistaken). Number of runs seems wrong relative to Population and Generation sizes.
E.g. If I set 10 and 10 respectively; I get 125 runs.
Can't work that out. Is it an error?
Do MC have access to the GA source code? Would they be prepared to share it, if so?
Basic Genetic Optimization uses more parameters than just Population and Generation sizes.I've just noticed that Portfolio Trader has a similar issue but for WFAs (both GAO and Brute Force)....... it is calculating too many runs to be backtested. Consequently it means, any form of PT WFA based optimization, takes significantly longer than the MC10 that I'm comparing it too.
I'll share some files with support so that they can reproduce.
The files will demonstrate how a Brute Force WFA (13 IS:OOS runs) search in a space of 64 permutations shows as needing 909 runs in MC12, vs what I make it: 13*(64+1) = 845 (same as MC10).
The total number of simulations is not equal to Population * Generation.
Here is the formula for calculating the total number of simulations when using Basic GA.
Parameters used:
number of inputs enabled for optimization
MaxNumberofGenerations - Generation sizes
SetPopulationSize - Population size.
and the other parameters from the Optimization Settings window.
pmful = 1 - Math.Pow (1 - MutationProbability, Inputs);
resultSim = (SetPopulationSize + MaxNumberofGenerations * (1 + SetPopulationSize * (pmful + CrossoverProbability - pmful * CrossoverProbability))) + MaxNumberofGenerations;
Where:
Math.Pow (x, y) – the raising to power of x ^ y.
resultSim - the total number of simulations.
inputs - the number of inputs.
The remaining parameters from the Optimization Settings window.
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
It will be corrected in the next update.And please correct this:
1. In the optimization window: "Average fithness ..." =>> "Average fitness ...".
You can change the order of the columns by drag and drop. The last configured order is saved and used by all subsequent optimizations. In the report window -> Settings -> Columns you can disable the columns that you do not need and save the settings for the subsequent reports by enabling the checkbox "Use as Default" and clicking OK.2. In the optimization report: the chaotic mix of the columns (% Profitable, input1, Avg Trade, input2, input3, Avg Bars in Loser, ...). If i have a lot of inputs to optimiz, in the optimization report the columns are very chaotic. As it was in MC 11 and it shoud be: First all the statistic columns and then all the input columns, but no mix of them.
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
Thanks for the detailed replies.I believe the Basic GA is also wrong (but could be mistaken). Number of runs seems wrong relative to Population and Generation sizes.
E.g. If I set 10 and 10 respectively; I get 125 runs.
Can't work that out. Is it an error?Do MC have access to the GA source code? Would they be prepared to share it, if so?Basic Genetic Optimization uses more parameters than just Population and Generation sizes.I've just noticed that Portfolio Trader has a similar issue but for WFAs (both GAO and Brute Force)....... it is calculating too many runs to be backtested. Consequently it means, any form of PT WFA based optimization, takes significantly longer than the MC10 that I'm comparing it too.
I'll share some files with support so that they can reproduce.
The files will demonstrate how a Brute Force WFA (13 IS:OOS runs) search in a space of 64 permutations shows as needing 909 runs in MC12, vs what I make it: 13*(64+1) = 845 (same as MC10).
The total number of simulations is not equal to Population * Generation.
Here is the formula for calculating the total number of simulations when using Basic GA.
Parameters used:
number of inputs enabled for optimization
MaxNumberofGenerations - Generation sizes
SetPopulationSize - Population size.
and the other parameters from the Optimization Settings window.
pmful = 1 - Math.Pow (1 - MutationProbability, Inputs);
resultSim = (SetPopulationSize + MaxNumberofGenerations * (1 + SetPopulationSize * (pmful + CrossoverProbability - pmful * CrossoverProbability))) + MaxNumberofGenerations;
Where:
Math.Pow (x, y) – the raising to power of x ^ y.
resultSim - the total number of simulations.
inputs - the number of inputs.
The remaining parameters from the Optimization Settings window.
That just leaves the discrepancy regarding MC12 PT WFA (exhaustive) excessive calculation runs. In the example I sent you, MC12 performs 909 calculations and MC10 845 calculations. Unsurprisingly, MC12 is slower too.
-
- Posts: 275
- Joined: 22 Apr 2014
- Has thanked: 70 times
- Been thanked: 72 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
MC, I think you forgot to have a look and change this:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51488&p=129983&hili ... rs#p129983 The purpose of these two boxes is to spot a "rejectable" stop order (rejectable because last traded price is worse than the trigger price, implying its intention for immediate execution as an aggressor order, but making it rejectable by the exchange) and convert it to an aggressor order for immediate execution.
1) You only need 1 box here, not two. Have something like: "Convert stopmarket/limit orders intended for immediate execution/trigger to market/limit orders".
2) Can I ask who is detecting the rejectable stop orders? If it is on MC's end can you please make sure that the exchange rejection reason matches MC's definition of rejectable. For example as a general rule, all futures exchanges use "last traded" and check that value against the stop trigger price. It has to be a c.100% match otherwise users will suffer false stop triggers (instead of having a stop working, untriggered at the exchange). If there are CQG FX users then maybe you want to insert a second box that they can tick too to make stop conversion quote relative???
I really want to use this feature as it will save me coding exception handlers (for pre-empting rejected orders) but the two options shown are gobbledygook and I've come against false synthetic stop conversions in MC before.
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=51488&p=129983&hili ... rs#p129983 The purpose of these two boxes is to spot a "rejectable" stop order (rejectable because last traded price is worse than the trigger price, implying its intention for immediate execution as an aggressor order, but making it rejectable by the exchange) and convert it to an aggressor order for immediate execution.
1) You only need 1 box here, not two. Have something like: "Convert stopmarket/limit orders intended for immediate execution/trigger to market/limit orders".
2) Can I ask who is detecting the rejectable stop orders? If it is on MC's end can you please make sure that the exchange rejection reason matches MC's definition of rejectable. For example as a general rule, all futures exchanges use "last traded" and check that value against the stop trigger price. It has to be a c.100% match otherwise users will suffer false stop triggers (instead of having a stop working, untriggered at the exchange). If there are CQG FX users then maybe you want to insert a second box that they can tick too to make stop conversion quote relative???
I really want to use this feature as it will save me coding exception handlers (for pre-empting rejected orders) but the two options shown are gobbledygook and I've come against false synthetic stop conversions in MC before.
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
wilkinsw,Thanks for the detailed replies. That just leaves the discrepancy regarding MC12 PT WFA (exhaustive) excessive calculation runs. In the example I sent you, MC12 performs 909 calculations and MC10 845 calculations. Unsurprisingly, MC12 is slower too.
After the last run the optimization is done once again on a data series equal to IS (or the complete data range for Anchored). The last WFA bar is matching the last bar of the data series. As the result of this optimization the Recommended set of inputs is displayed.
Your chart is the OOS for the recommended parameters.
When you apply them to signals – they are backtested with these recommended inputs on your chart.
There was no such functionality in MC 10, hence the difference in the number of the calculations:
MC 10 (64 + 1) * 13 = 845
MC 12 (64 + 1) * 13 + 64 = 909
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
Hi Henry,wilkinsw,Thanks for the detailed replies. That just leaves the discrepancy regarding MC12 PT WFA (exhaustive) excessive calculation runs. In the example I sent you, MC12 performs 909 calculations and MC10 845 calculations. Unsurprisingly, MC12 is slower too.
After the last run the optimization is done once again on a data series equal to IS (or the complete data range for Anchored). The last WFA bar is matching the last bar of the data series. As the result of this optimization the Recommended set of inputs is displayed.
Your chart is the OOS for the recommended parameters.
When you apply them to signals – they are backtested with these recommended inputs on your chart.
There was no such functionality in MC 10, hence the difference in the number of the calculations:
MC 10 (64 + 1) * 13 = 845
MC 12 (64 + 1) * 13 + 64 = 909
I'm still getting PT WFAs with number of calculations that don't equate to your logic.
I'll send the files to you now.
For example:
PT WFA GA incremental: 17 IS:00S runs (18 IS runs if MC12).
Pop=8, Gen=1, logical processors=8
That should be:
MC10 289 calculations
MC12 305 calculations
However, it's stating:
MC12 526 calculations
FYI MC10 is correct (289).
What's wierd, is that when MC12 roughly reaches the max calculations it should be doing (near 305), the progress bar then accelerates forward. Maybe it's then skipping the "phantom" calculations and proceeding to the final IS run??
In any event, I'd appreciate you guys taking a look. Hopefully it's just a bug in the calculation of cycles and doesn't actually effect what the WFA ends up doing. Would be good to not have to manually work out an eta for WFA completion.
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
I've uncovered that the above issue seems to only effect PT anchored WFAs. Non-anchored generate rational numbers for number of calculations to be conducted.
However, I've now also discovered a discrepancy in how PT calculates the size of windows in anchored vs non-anchored.
In the example below, they are both 1000 day in sample and 125 out of sample. The left results are non-anchored and right are anchored. Total runs should be the same for both, but aren't. The first IS:OOS run should have the same dates but don't. 1000 days in anchored translates to very slightly under 4 years (as in 1000/252 trading days). And 125 days is roughly 6 months. But, for some reason, means something else if non-anchored.
I can't work out why turning off "anchored" is creating such different behaviour. And why can't an anchored WFA correctly calculate the number of calculations to be carried out? Might the two aberrations be related?
However, I've now also discovered a discrepancy in how PT calculates the size of windows in anchored vs non-anchored.
In the example below, they are both 1000 day in sample and 125 out of sample. The left results are non-anchored and right are anchored. Total runs should be the same for both, but aren't. The first IS:OOS run should have the same dates but don't. 1000 days in anchored translates to very slightly under 4 years (as in 1000/252 trading days). And 125 days is roughly 6 months. But, for some reason, means something else if non-anchored.
I can't work out why turning off "anchored" is creating such different behaviour. And why can't an anchored WFA correctly calculate the number of calculations to be carried out? Might the two aberrations be related?
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
Also,
In MC12 PT GAO settings: If you choose "basic", it won't auto populate the population and generation fields, like it does in MC10 and like it does in MC12's native GAO. Instead it sticks with the auto-populated values that were generated for the default incremental GA.
In MC12 PT GAO settings: If you choose "basic", it won't auto populate the population and generation fields, like it does in MC10 and like it does in MC12's native GAO. Instead it sticks with the auto-populated values that were generated for the default incremental GA.
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
I'm not convinced the WFA robustness measure is on point.
I think it is a great idea for a feature.
Might I suggest when the user clicks on "Robustness: PASS/FAIL" in the bottom right that the window that pops up, not only shows them the robustness settings currently in place, but also shows individual PASS/FAIL status for each measure.
I am yet to go through this feature with a fine tooth comb. I've just completed a PT WFA and I've deduced that robustness failed due to average profit factor being less than X. I presume that means average OOS profit factor?
However, when calculating the average OOS PF in excel, i have a figure much higher than the robustness threshold. So no idea why it is failing on that measure. It could be a bug maybe?
I think it is a great idea for a feature.
Might I suggest when the user clicks on "Robustness: PASS/FAIL" in the bottom right that the window that pops up, not only shows them the robustness settings currently in place, but also shows individual PASS/FAIL status for each measure.
I am yet to go through this feature with a fine tooth comb. I've just completed a PT WFA and I've deduced that robustness failed due to average profit factor being less than X. I presume that means average OOS profit factor?
However, when calculating the average OOS PF in excel, i have a figure much higher than the robustness threshold. So no idea why it is failing on that measure. It could be a bug maybe?
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
- Anna MultiCharts
- Posts: 560
- Joined: 14 Jul 2017
- Has thanked: 42 times
- Been thanked: 141 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
Hello, wilkinsw!
RE: stop and stop-limit orders conversion.
We’ve exchanged multiple emails on this matter last year and arrived to consensus that we’ll perform the conversion this way:
viewtopic.php?t=51308#p128897
These conversion principles were introduced in MultiCharts 11 Release 9. Have you already tried using these options? Are they working as described in the above specified forum post? If not, please describe what’s wrong in more detail and provide some illustrations for this. (maybe it would be more convenient to start another forum thread in this case)
As for combining options into one – I’m afraid most likely we won’t be able to do that as other users might be already accustomed to this setup.
RE: stop and stop-limit orders conversion.
We’ve exchanged multiple emails on this matter last year and arrived to consensus that we’ll perform the conversion this way:
viewtopic.php?t=51308#p128897
These conversion principles were introduced in MultiCharts 11 Release 9. Have you already tried using these options? Are they working as described in the above specified forum post? If not, please describe what’s wrong in more detail and provide some illustrations for this. (maybe it would be more convenient to start another forum thread in this case)
As for combining options into one – I’m afraid most likely we won’t be able to do that as other users might be already accustomed to this setup.
– conversion takes place upon order placement, and MultiCharts makes the decision about conversion.Can I ask who is detecting the rejectable stop orders?
– please elaborate.If there are CQG FX users then maybe you want to insert a second box that they can tick too to make stop conversion quote relative???
- Henry MultiСharts
- Posts: 9165
- Joined: 25 Aug 2011
- Has thanked: 1264 times
- Been thanked: 2958 times
Re: MULTICHARTS 12.0 RELEASE 4
This is something that will be corrected when Portfolio Trader is switched to using the new optimization GUI (like in MultiCharts).In MC12 PT GAO settings: If you choose "basic", it won't auto populate the population and generation fields, like it does in MC10 and like it does in MC12's native GAO. Instead it sticks with the auto-populated values that were generated for the default incremental GA.
This is something we are going to improve in MultiCharts 13.Might I suggest when the user clicks on "Robustness: PASS/FAIL" in the bottom right that the window that pops up, not only shows them the robustness settings currently in place, but also shows individual PASS/FAIL status for each measure.
If this is something that still can be replicated on your end, please send me the workspace, data, signal for replicating it on our end.However, when calculating the average OOS PF in excel, i have a figure much higher than the robustness threshold. So no idea why it is failing on that measure. It could be a bug maybe?