Two EA's when amalgamated don't return the expected value
I had expected the return amount to be equal to both of the individual EA's return put together and was obviously wrong. Without posting the EA, is it common for an EA amalgamation to interfere with itself to return less profit than anticipated or is it more likely that the EA is programmed incorrectly?
Yes and no! There are several scenarios where one strategy can negatively impact the other.
The most obvious reason is, the money management! Lets say that when you back-tested each one separately, you were using 1% risk for each trade. Now with both working together, you may be attributing 0.5% risk to each strategy so that together they never go over the 1% Limit. So, in this case each is only contributing to half its initial test results and in the end they both together return a similar gain as the individual tests.
Another possibility, is that when one strategy is going into draw-down, thus reducing your balance, the profits based on a x% risk of the other strategy is not compounding but instead reducing (because of the overall draw-down caused by the other strategy), so that the final values are not as great.
These are just possibilities! There could be many other factors!
And yes, it could also be that the EA is not properly coded!
Yes and no! There are several scenarios where one strategy can negatively impact the other.
The most obvious reason is, the money management! Lets say that when you back-tested each one separately, you were using 1% risk for each trade. Now with both working together, you may be attributing 0.5% risk to each strategy so that together they never go over the 1% Limit. So, in this case each is only contributing to half its initial test results and in the end they both together return a similar gain as the individual tests.
Another possibility, is that when one strategy is going into draw-down, thus reducing your balance, the profits based on a x% risk of the other strategy is not compounding but instead reducing (because of the overall draw-down caused by the other strategy), so that the final values are not as great.
These are just possibilities! There could be many other factors!
And yes, it could also be that the EA is not properly coded!
Thanks for your response, it was helpful. I think then, as I've yet to input the MM system, the code must be defective. After some trial and error I'm going to suppose that it's because of this piece of code now becoming less active and not resetting the OMN to 0 as often.
{
OMNB5 = 0;
OMNS5 = 0;
OMNB51 = 0;
OMNS51 = 0;
}
Instead I may input this piece of code, do you think it would have the desired effect?
for ( int v = _OrdersTotal - 1; v >= 0; v -- )
{
//---- if an error occurs when searching for a position, go to the next one
if ( !OrderSelect( v, SELECT_BY_POS ) )
{
_GetLastError = GetLastError();
Print( "OrderSelect( ", v, ", SELECT_BY_POS ) - Error #", _GetLastError );
continue;
}
if ( OrderMagicNumber() == 5 )
{
if (OrderType() == OP_BUY)
{
return(0);
}
else
{
OMNB5 = 0;
}
if (OrderType() == OP_SELL)
{
return(0);
}
else
{
OMNS5 = 0;
}
}
if ( OrderMagicNumber() == 51 )
{
if (OrderType() == OP_BUY)
{
return(0);
}
else
{
OMNB51 = 0;
}
if ( OrderType() == OP_SELL )
{
return(0);
}
else
{
OMNS51 = 0;
}
}
continue;
} // END OF FOR V
Thanks for your response, it was helpful. I think then, as I've yet to input the MM system, the code must be defective. After some trial and error I'm going to suppose that it's because of this piece of code now becoming less active and not resetting the OMN to 0 as often.
Instead I may input this piece of code, do you think it would have the desired effect?
That is insufficient to be able to help you! But your coding style, does show that your code is very prone to logic flow problems!
Irrespective of that, your "if (OrdersTotal() == 0)" logic is flawed too. It will not play well if other EAs or instants of itself are running at the same.
-
Play videoPlease edit your post.
For large amounts of code, attach it - Using OrdersTotal directly and/or no Magic number filtering on your OrderSelect loop means your code is incompatible with every EA (including itself on other charts and manual trading.) Symbol Doesn't equal Ordersymbol when another currency is added to another seperate chart . - MQL4 forum
-
Please edit your post.
For large amounts of code, attach it - Using OrdersTotal directly and/or no Magic number filtering on your OrderSelect loop means your code is incompatible with every EA (including itself on other charts and manual trading.) Symbol Doesn't equal Ordersymbol when another currency is added to another seperate chart . - MQL4 forum
-
Please edit your post.
For large amounts of code, attach it - Using OrdersTotal directly and/or no Magic number filtering on your OrderSelect loop means your code is incompatible with every EA (including itself on other charts and manual trading.) Symbol Doesn't equal Ordersymbol when another currency is added to another seperate chart . - MQL4 forum
Whroeder, I'm looking through your code but could you clarify something?
How/where is iWhat, eSelect, and ePool given a value?
{
if(!OrderSelect(iWhat, eSelect, ePool) ) return (false);
if(OrderMagicNumber() != magic.number ) return (false);
if(OrderSymbol() != symbol.chart ) return (false);
if(ePool != MODE_HISTORY ) return (true);
return(OrderType() <= OP_SELL);
}
// So bool only true when
As it is initiated only within the bool, why then would
ever return true? (For ePool it's because the order that has been selected is from MODE_TRADES (but not from MODE_HISTORY), but the iWhat and eSelect are befuddling me)
Also, where does
come into play?
On further consideration I think I may have improperly worded my question..
When I ran my initial EA, it only looked at one symbol and one timeframe. The EA was never able to have more than one position open at a time, because of this fact I could use this rather primitive code
{
OMNB5 = 0;
OMNS5 = 0;
}
to simply reset OMNB5/OMNS5 back to 0 in case
//(MACD1 < 0.0) ||
{
//---- close the position
if ( !OrderClose( OrderTicket(), OrderLots(), Bid, 10, Green ) )
{
_GetLastError = GetLastError();
Alert( "Error OrderClose # ", _GetLastError );
return(-1);
}
else
{
OMNB5--;
continue;
'OMNB5--' is not triggered, say for example where a stop loss is moved to break even;
//else if ( B < A)
{
if (OrderModify(OrderTicket(),OrderOpenPrice(),(OrderOpenPrice()+5*Point()),OrderTakeProfit(),0,Green)== true)
{
//OMNB5--;
continue;
}
else
{
Alert ("Problem whilst moving SL to BE");
return(0);
}
}
The problem arose when I compiled multiple EA's into one another, sometimes multiple positions would open and close correctly as each has a unique magicnumber that excludes it from being closed by the wrong function, HOWEVER; The OMNB5/OMNS5 is now no longer effectively reset whenever OrdersTotal == 0.
For the life of me I can't think of a way to query the open orders and then reset OMNB5 back to = 0 when there are still other positions open but not position that was initiated by the OMN'5' strategy part..
Is there anyone who knows how to achieve this without using the 'OMNB5--;' function after successfully moving SL to Break even?
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Hi,
I've got two different EA's both profitable over 2016 on GBPJPY on the 1H timeframe, one returns 267.51 and the other 233.54 yet when amalgamated into a single EA that uses both trading strategies simultaneously (whilst allowing the extra positions to be opened) the return was 269.97.
I had expected the return amount to be equal to both of the individual EA's return put together and was obviously wrong. Without posting the EA, is it common for an EA amalgamation to interfere with itself to return less profit than anticipated or is it more likely that the EA is programmed incorrectly?
Thanks!