Max Cost only works reliably for percentages if it is configured to a fixed value.
If it is configured to unlimited (aka -1), Max Cost always equals Current Cost.
This doesn’t give us a base to compare our bots against.
So I would suggest using the Max Parallel Cost instead, that shows how many funds were really used at the same time in the past. That way even bots with a fix value of Max Cost could be valued based on that.
This would give us a view on our bots that is more
realistic and finally also more comparable
Of course, for this to work, the bot would have to know what the maximum parallel cost used by the bot in the past was, since it can be different from both Max Cost and Current Cost.
We really need this feature. The bot above is now “down” to 41.39% total profit and 0.08 avg daily. Evaluating only the Max Cost gives a wrong impression of the results, especially for bots with unlimited parallel trades, especially since even this unlimited is currently limited to 200 per bot, I think.
Maybe Max Cost should even be calculated for the currently allowed maximum number of parallel trades per bot in this case? The Max Parallel Cost column would still be helpful, especially if bots never used all configured funds in the past.
The first row shows above bot which had a total profit of 756.13% and avg daily of 1.95% before. Now it’s down to Earth again as it’s spending more and more funds which weren’t taken care of in the stats before.
The second bot has a fix amount of funds instead and therefore already gives a more realistic picture of the bots statistics. With max parallel cost both could be compared easily.
