Cost Averaging System - page 30

New comment
 

Forward testing

yeoeleven:

I am also continuing to test Cost Averaging v3 Pyramid and posted is this week's result with default settings and using M1 TF

John

Here is a statement of the progressive testing of this EA from when first attached on 10th October.

John

 

hello

hello,

i am ok to test this ea, could you please email me at t.mintzior@laposte.net

 

Cost Averaging RSI with Trend v3 TESTS 1-2 part2

These are version 3 tests I started last week (settings page 24, posts #231-236).

I need your suggestions and comments.

Thank you.

 

Cost Averaging RSI with Trend v3 TESTS 3-4 part2

TESTS 3-4 part2

 

Cost Averaging RSI with Trend v3 TESTS 5-6 part2

TESTS 5-6 part2

 
yeoeleven:
I am forward testing the latest EA as emailed with the default settings.

Cost Avge RSI with Trend v1 Here are this week's result using M15 TF

I am also continuing to test Cost Averaging v3 Pyramid and posted is this week's result with default settings and using M1 TF

John

Thank you Maji I will attach the newer edition of the EAs on Monday morning

Cost Avge RSI with Trend v1 will be replaced with Cost Avge RSI with Trend 4.

Cost Averaging v3 Pyramid which has been very profitable since the 10th Oct will still be tested and the new Cost Avg Common RSI v1 will be attached to a different platform.

I appreciate the work being done in this thread by those able to contribute their expertise and I will continue to forward test the improved editions.

John

 

Comment on the latest version sent out

You can use this RSI w/trend v4 on IBFX mini account as is. Otherwise, you will have to make the following changes

extern double pLots = 0.1;

int LotDigits=1;

Scott was kind enough to point out the error messages you will get if you do not do that. The settings as is results in a very aggressive version and I am testing it on IBFX mini demo using nano lots. The results aren't good but thought just give it a try.

 

I am looking at the different results and from what I am getting to understand from this EA. The foremost is risk control. This is an open ended EA, and can blow out an account. So, the best is to trade small. I think using nanolots on IBFX will be a great way to trade. The returns won't be spectacular, but will provide for some handsome annual returns.

Any comments?

 
Maji:
I am looking at the different results and from what I am getting to understand from this EA. The foremost is risk control. This is an open ended EA, and can blow out an account. So, the best is to trade small. I think using nanolots on IBFX will be a great way to trade. The returns won't be spectacular, but will provide for some handsome annual returns. Any comments?

Maji,

You are right. Without risk control, the system can not survive for long time, it would low out an account any day. There are too many ways to enter positions. Perhaps from now, we should focus on the risk control.

The following site is posting real performance with the martingale strategies and nanolots on IBFX, it is testing on 10K account.

http://www.nanoforex.fr/documents/MiniPamm.mht

I wish the Cost Average system would have better performance than this.

With $10000 min account on IBFX and using nanolots, could you suggest what pairs should be tested? To have a return of 20% per year, how many pips do we expect each week?

Thanks!

Scott

 

I had to change total <= MaxTrades to total < MaxTrades for the max orders to work rite for meh

1...232425262728293031323334353637...62
New comment
Reason: