Phoenix 2007 (new thread) - page 51

New comment
 

Clarification

Hendrick:
Fikko, I'm not sure what you mean with "Phoenix may open 5 trades for 1 currency". If that's the case then I think you have more than 1 Mode set as True. You have to set only one of the three modes set as True.

I'm not quite sure if the "5 trades per currency" is valid, but I guess one of the reasons why I brought up the MM side of things is that "ideally" I'd like the Risk parameter to represent my potential for loss on one signal (wheatver it be 1 trade or 2 or 3 trades).

So for example in mode 1 if we have a signal and a setting of Risk of 1%, to me that would mean that I can loose at most 1% of my account value on this particular signal.

Another example, in mode 2 where there may be two trades as a result of the one signal, then most likelly it would be preferable to split the 1% into 2 parts and risk each part on each trade. (though this is a bit slippery in this case since if I'm not mistaken the second trade doesn't come into play untill the first trade is set at BE and in profit already)

Hopefully I'm not confusing things here, but that was my intention initially.

What do you guys think about it?

 
Hendrick:
An updated version of Phoenix 5 (version 5.6.02).

- MicroAccount was still not working. Changed the code as suggested by lgvh.

Manual for Phoenix is updated.

The modifications I suggest had been tested with the competition version, now I review in full the new code, here follows the necesary modifications for thes new version:

1- There is some compatibility problem with the variable name "MicroAccount" with the compiler, I rename it to "Micro_Account" (must be done in all code)

2- In addition to the original sugested corrections it is necesary to change

int CheckOpenTradeMode123()

{

int Signal = 0, err = 0, total = OrdersTotal();

double lots123 = NormalizeDouble(LotsOptimized()/3,1);

if(lots123 < 0.1) {lots123=0.1;}

to

int CheckOpenTradeMode123()

{

int Signal = 0, err = 0, total = OrdersTotal();

double lots123 = NormalizeDouble(LotsOptimized()/3,1);

if(lots123 < 0.1 && Micro_Account==false) {lots123=0.1;}

if(lots123 < 0.01 && Micro_Account==true) {lots123=0.01;}

Now tested with Real Trader (Metatrader from www.RealTrader.lv)

I'm sorry to post the corrections without test the new version , I just saw the LotsOptimized() function that was the same (with the exception of the change of the variable name AccountIsMicro) and I posted in a hurry the code that worked for the previous version. Excuse my English, hope you understand

 
lgvh:
The modifications I suggest had been tested with the competition version, now I review in full the new code, here follows the necesary modifications for thes new version:

1- There is some compatibility problem with the variable name "MicroAccount" with the compiler, I rename it to "Micro_Account" (must be done in all code)

What was exactly the compatibility problem with the variable "MicroAccount"?

Thanks for your contribution!

 
Hendrick:
Fikko, I'm not sure what you mean with "Phoenix may open 5 trades for 1 currency". If that's the case then I think you have more than 1 Mode set as True. You have to set only one of the three modes set as True.

Yes Hendrick,

It is true that Phoenix 5 can open up to 5 trades at once, if we switched on all the modes. But I guess it is not tested yet (?)

However I like when seeing combination of the modes, compare to combination of the currency pair. Seeing your success trade on championship, I think better to concentrate on USDJPY rather than concentrating on other pairs.

See this result? it is an amizing Phonex 5, can turn $1000 to $1 million within 6 months of trade. I am using mode 1 and mode 3.

The risk is 0.3, using 2 modes it will consume 60% of the free margin.

It is very great in backtest, but Let's see how it perform in forward test.

 
fikko:
Yes Hendrick,

It is true that Phoenix 5 can open up to 5 trades at once, if we switched on all the modes. But I guess it is not tested yet (?)

However I like when seeing combination of the modes, compare to combination of the currency pair. Seeing your success trade on championship, I think better to concentrate on USDJPY rather than concentrating on other pairs.

See this result? it is an amizing Phonex 5, can turn $1000 to $1 million within 6 months of trade. I am using mode 1 and mode 3.

The risk is 0.3, using 2 modes it will consume 60% of the free margin.

It is very great in backtest, but Let's see how it perform in forward test.

Well Fikko. So you've just discovered how to become a millionaire in 6 months with Phoenix. Thought I could keep this a secret for myself .

Problem is, I just changed the code in version 5.6.02 to prevent this. So what should I do? Change it back to the old settings or what? Anyone?

 

make another mode that will use all 3 modes at the same time or something, if this is trully useful.

 
Hendrick:
What was exactly the compatibility problem with the variable "MicroAccount"? Thanks for your contribution!

When I use MicroAccount=true; and make test Print("MicroAccount=", MicroAccount); , the result is 0 (=false) . The test was done inside LotsOptimized() function. Once made the name change to Micro_Account, every thing works fine, without any other modification.

Maybe is a reserved (not documented) word, I don't know.

 
Hendrick:
Well Fikko. So you've just discovered how to become a millionaire in 6 months with Phoenix. Thought I could keep this a secret for myself . Problem is, I just changed the code in version 5.6.02 to prevent this. So what should I do? Change it back to the old settings or what? Anyone?

Not a problem.

You can place 2 phoenix, on 2 USDJPY with different setting. It is not necessary to change it back. You just can't see the Excellent result of 1 million in the backtest!!

The secret of 1 million is invented by Hendrick!!!

 
lgvh:
When I use MicroAccount=true; and make test Print("MicroAccount=", MicroAccount); , the result is 0 (=false) . The test was done inside LotsOptimized() function. Once made the name change to Micro_Account, every thing works fine, without any other modification. Maybe is a reserved (not documented) word, I don't know.

This is very, very weird!! To play it safe I will change the name of the variable. Thanks!

 

Hi Hendrick.

I like to the idea that we can assign a defined portion of the account to the EA. Than we can use the remaining portion for other activities, like manuallly operation or other EAs without changing the risk.karl

1...444546474849505152535455565758...135
New comment
Reason: