Trading Systems Based on Signal Indicators - page 3

New comment
 

All asctrend indicators were not converted from MT3 to MT4, and from MT4 to MT5 so I will have to find some additional indicator in existing MT5 CodeBase.

That's all news.

 
newdigital:

All signal systems are traded on close bar. It is almost impossible to trade it on open bar: open bar is continuing painting together with signal.

Those are terms:

  • trading on open bar
  • trading on close bar

"Trading on close bar" is having exact meaning what you said: "About repaint: use the signal just after close bar it's a good idea to avoid noise signals". So, 'trading on close bar' = 'use signal after bar is close'.

All signal systems are traded on close bar except some old scalping systems.

I respect your point of view, but totally disagree. For me this is just a paradigm ...
 
Why paradigm? This is axiom (axiom of choice). I traded on close bar and I traded on open bar, and I traded normal indicators, and I traded repainting indicators.

Sometimes - the people confused repainting with contrinuing painting, and trading on open bar with trading on close bar. We are having a lot of threads about prorgamming but just few threads about how to trade in practical way with a lot of indicators in CodeBase for example :)

 

As much as I like to see an indicator painting  buy and sell signals in the main chart  it is quite irritating that most indicators place the buy symbol above the bar that raised the signal or sell symbol l below the bar that raised the signal.

So if you look at the charts in this thread you might think what great signals  does the indicator deliver.

But in most cases the pending order will be on the next bar if the signal is taken valid after the close of the current bar.

To provide a better perspective what quality the signals of an indicator are the signal should be either at the real value of signal 

(assuming you could buy on the next tick) instead of getting shifted above or below of the bar.

Then one will see that the value difference between a buy and a sell signal is much less (if there is a positive difference any at all).

Documentation on MQL5: Standard Constants, Enumerations and Structures / Trade Constants / Order Properties
Documentation on MQL5: Standard Constants, Enumerations and Structures / Trade Constants / Order Properties
  • www.mql5.com
Standard Constants, Enumerations and Structures / Trade Constants / Order Properties - Documentation on MQL5
 

Buy dot is blue the bar and red dot is above. And value of those dots are used for as stop loss value. And yes, it is trading on close bar but market orders (not pending order).

Example:


Documentation on MQL5: Standard Constants, Enumerations and Structures / Trade Constants / Order Properties
Documentation on MQL5: Standard Constants, Enumerations and Structures / Trade Constants / Order Properties
  • www.mql5.com
Standard Constants, Enumerations and Structures / Trade Constants / Order Properties - Documentation on MQL5
 

It is the other example - I opened sell trade for USDCAD M1. Basicly - this system is not for M1 but I selected this timeframe as an example:


 

It is the last updated for USDCAD - I made one more re-enter (I do not like hedge sorry, I like re-enter according to price action). It is 16 pips in profit (4 digit pips) according to the equity:


 
newdigital:
Why paradigm? This is axiom (axiom of choice). I traded on close bar and I traded on open bar, and I traded normal indicators, and I traded repainting indicators.

Sometimes - the people confused repainting with contrinuing painting, and trading on open bar with trading on close bar. We are having a lot of threads about prorgamming but just few threads about how to trade in practical way with a lot of indicators in CodeBase for example :)

Right, if you consider just one timeframe. But remember, one of the greatest advantage of algo trading is that you can analyse and compare multiple timeframes in real time.

And there are lot of other ways to be free of axioms using HFT.

So, for me this is just a paradigm. 

 

Yes, agree. But if we are talking about the other timeframes (means: trading on M5 with the confirmation of H1 or H4 for example) so it depends on why we need those higher timeframe:

  • if it is just a confirmation on close for the trend direction so we can not make scalping on M5 for exampel as it looks like a classical way of trading
  • if we are using more higher timeframes to get trading signals too so, most probably - we will do it on open bar. Means: trading on M5 close bar with the confirmation of H1 and h4 on open bar. And this - yes, I agree for what you are saying.
 
newdigital:

Yes, agree. But if we are talking about the other timeframes (means: trading on M5 with the confirmation of H1 or H4 for example) so it depends on why we need those higher timeframe:

  • if it is just a confirmation on close for the trend direction so we can not make scalping on M5 for exampel as it looks like a classical way of trading
  • if we are using more higher timeframes to get trading signals too so, most probably - we will do it on open bar. Means: trading on M5 close bar with the confirmation of H1 and h4 on open bar. And this - yes, I agree for what you are saying.

Well, in my opinion open/close bars are very useful for manual execution of trades, since humans do not have the necessary speed to process information tick by tick.

But if the algorithms can quickly create and process multiple indicators in multiple timeframes and tick by tick (or real time), why they should be stuck in these patterns that are virtually human limitations?

In this sense, and maybe I'm wrong, some of my algorithms don't have this limitation and any other standard form found in the manuals of technical analysis, since for me this is the new reality of the man machine trading.

Anyway, this is not the point, and study standard Asctrend signal as you propose looks more relevant here (and I hope learn more about in this thread). 

12345678910...45
New comment
Reason: