Quote from: itod on December 10, 2013, 11:25:28 PM

Quote from: kugutsumen on December 10, 2013, 04:44:58 PM

I read up on Ichimoku and I fixed a bug in Medji's code and used different parameters.

kugutsumen, your posts are confusing since it is not clear what are you talking about.

If you backtested algorithms from this round on previous rounds - that's cool, and presenting results in clear manner would be appreciated.

I thought it was clear: I replied to a recent post about round 4 and short term trading. I showed that it was possible to profit on the short term with or without crash, compared my results as well as medji r5 version to the R4 results.

Quote from: itod on December 10, 2013, 11:25:28 PM

If you are bragging about some mysterious algorithm of yours which beats everything by a mile, but you don't want to post it - "No comment" on that, when you have some proof we can talk about it.

Again I was really clear. It isn't a mysterious algo, it is a modified version of the Ichimoku example that Medji is also using.

Quote from: kugutsumen

Please keep in mind that this is a quick hack, I am completely new to this... I read up on Ichimoku and I fixed a bug in Medji's code and used different parameters.

I have sent a copy to Pulsecat as proof:

Quote from: Alex

I have to say the results of your backtest are exciting. Though the round has already started, I would love to have you participate next round.

Quote from: itod on December 10, 2013, 11:25:28 PM

If you are claiming there's a bug in Ichimoku example in Backtest->Featured part of the site, which are there for everyone to use, and you don't want to point which bug is it - that's really lame. Don't do such a thing.

I think that the Ichimoku example has a small bug in it but that is based on my initial reading of the docs at ichimokutrader.com. I'll probably share my fix when round 6 opens. It will give me time to research my theory further, I don't see how this is lame.