"Phoenix - FAQ, Stable, User support -Read Post #1" - page 5
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
A very wild guess: I seem to recall seeing somewhere that Alpari handles Sunday bars differently than FXDD. You might want to visually compare the price plots in both platforms, and especially compare the Sunday bars. With MT I'll assume that you'll also want to test and optimize using the platform that you'll be trading with.
I haven't verified that what you are saying is true, but my gut honestly tells me the same thing. The PhoenixFund has IB approval, working on paperwork now. When that is done, I hope to make historic data available from that broker. We should backtest, optimize, forward test and trade all using the same data.
Of course, you should not use beta version on live account. _06 is beta version. Well, at least I wouldn't...
Actually we are still on the development road for our first stable version as far as I know.
MarioTHat is correct, still trying to make a stable version. I do think that this is an "innocent error" - meaning we have an error but it isn't hurting the actual performance of the EA.
Invalid Stops and Error #1 I have confirmed that the EA is attempting to set the same settings again. That is a bug and needless chatter with the broker, but shouldn't affect your actual trades.
Looking at the bugs in 5.6.4 and 5.6.3 for mode 3 that *do* affect your actual trades, I would highly recommend 5.6.6 for Mode 3. 5.6.4 and 5.6.3 mode 1 are identical. 5.6.6 changes the trading logic slightly for Mode 1 or Mode 2, in an attempt (and possibly met with moderate success) to make the trading more reliable. Some backtests have slightly lower or much higher profit levels, but the main goal was to make the EA more consistent with its trades.
Has anyone been able to get the errors listed above in 5.6.6 with their backtested data? I might have an easy fix if the answer is no, but it will take live trade debugging to verify it.
Two demo accounts one IBFX. the other FXDD...
Two image to day... look carefully... 10h00 gmt
Where is the truth ????
Add at that, local electricity is between 105 and 115 v (sometimes more ! sometimes les ! Or not at all during 2 hours) Server response is between 25 and 305 ms (sometimes no response between 2,3 4, 5 seconds !) frequency 48/52 hz.....
No ! No ! I will try now...golf : a ball and an hole... Tiger Woods earned 69 millions $ in 2005... I have my chance !!! (joking!)
text editor
someone mentioned a text editor that is user friendly for matching up parenthesis etc when writing code. Does anyone remember what the software and where the download is?
THat is correct, still trying to make a stable version. I do think that this is an "innocent error" - meaning we have an error but it isn't hurting the actual performance of the EA.
Invalid Stops and Error #1 I have confirmed that the EA is attempting to set the same settings again. That is a bug and needless chatter with the broker, but shouldn't affect your actual trades.
Looking at the bugs in 5.6.4 and 5.6.3 for mode 3 that *do* affect your actual trades, I would highly recommend 5.6.6 for Mode 3. 5.6.4 and 5.6.3 mode 1 are identical. 5.6.6 changes the trading logic slightly for Mode 1 or Mode 2, in an attempt (and possibly met with moderate success) to make the trading more reliable. Some backtests have slightly lower or much higher profit levels, but the main goal was to make the EA more consistent with its trades.
Has anyone been able to get the errors listed above in 5.6.6 with their backtested data? I might have an easy fix if the answer is no, but it will take live trade debugging to verify it.Got the errors as:
2006.12.04 21:26:21 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
2006.12.04 21:25:24 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
2006.12.04 21:25:15 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURUSD,M15: OrderModify - Error # 4051
2006.12.04 21:25:15 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURUSD,M15: invalid stoploss for OrderModify function
2006.12.04 21:25:13 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
2006.12.04 21:24:59 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
2006.12.04 21:24:54 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
2006.12.04 21:24:22 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
2006.12.04 21:24:18 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
2006.12.04 21:24:15 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
2006.12.04 21:24:04 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
I believe this error does affect the performance of the EA.
Thanks!
Scott
Got the errors as:
2006.12.04 21:24:59 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 EURJPY,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
I believe this error does affect the performance of the EA.
Scott
Yes, I'm also getting this error (frequency around once per minute):
2006.12.04 16:01:19 Phoenix_EA_v5_6_06 USDCHF,M15: OrderModify - Error # 1
This error is happening in Mode 3. I have Mode 3 on two pairs but only one is generating errors. Is this error because of adjusting Stop Sell (S/L) point? In that case it makes sense that I have error only on one pair, because on another one I don't have enough profit for changing Stop Sell order.
Mario
I don't know why, but this is an example of 5.6.06 setting sl to breakeven (152.99) and then 1 second later, resetting s/l to 143.51. Something is triggering a double OrderModify call with the 2nd call having bad data.
2006.12.05 11:27:51 '332005': order #6331108 buy 0.10 EURJPY at 152.9900 was modified -> sl: 143.5100tp: 154.0400
2006.12.05 11:27:51 '332005': request in process
2006.12.05 11:27:51 '332005': request was accepted by server
2006.12.05 11:27:51 '332005': modify order #6331108 buy 0.10 EURJPY at 152.9900 sl: 152.9900 tp: 154.0400 -> sl: 143.5100 tp: 154.0400
2006.12.05 11:27:50 '332005': order #6331108 buy 0.10 EURJPY at 152.9900 was modified -> sl: 152.9900tp: 154.0400
2006.12.05 11:27:50 '332005': request in process
2006.12.05 11:27:50 '332005': request was accepted by server
2006.12.05 11:27:50 '332005': modify order #6331108 buy 0.10 EURJPY at 152.9900 sl: 143.5100 tp: 154.0400 -> sl: 152.9900 tp: 154.0400
The OrderModify - Error # 1 is stopped by changing this code:
to this
[CODE]if(OrderProfit()>10) FirstTrade=true;Wackena
Thanks for the logs and suggestion Wackena. I shuffled obligations and released 5.6.7 with this and several related fixes, all for mode 3. I don't know if "10" is a good value or not, but I included it. Is the consensus among people that "10" is a good value for previous profit, or would a dynamic value based on criteria be better? if so, what criteria?
I also added some code to detect duplicate SL levels, and a few logical fixes. I'm working on the release notes now.
I don't know why, but this is an example of 5.6.06 setting sl to breakeven (152.99) and then 1 second later, resetting s/l to 143.51. Something is triggering a double OrderModify call with the 2nd call having bad data.
2006.12.05 11:27:51 '332005': order #6331108 buy 0.10 EURJPY at 152.9900 was modified -> sl: 143.5100tp: 154.0400
2006.12.05 11:27:51 '332005': request in process
2006.12.05 11:27:51 '332005': request was accepted by server
2006.12.05 11:27:51 '332005': modify order #6331108 buy 0.10 EURJPY at 152.9900 sl: 152.9900 tp: 154.0400 -> sl: 143.5100 tp: 154.0400
2006.12.05 11:27:50 '332005': order #6331108 buy 0.10 EURJPY at 152.9900 was modified -> sl: 152.9900tp: 154.0400
2006.12.05 11:27:50 '332005': request in process
2006.12.05 11:27:50 '332005': request was accepted by server
2006.12.05 11:27:50 '332005': modify order #6331108 buy 0.10 EURJPY at 152.9900 sl: 143.5100 tp: 154.0400 -> sl: 152.9900 tp: 154.0400
The OrderModify - Error # 1 is stopped by changing this code:
to this
[CODE]if(OrderProfit()>10) FirstTrade=true;Thanks for the logs and suggestion Wackena. I shuffled obligations and released 5.6.7 with this and several related fixes, all for mode 3. I don't know if "10" is a good value or not, but I included it. Is the consensus among people that "10" is a good value for previous profit, or would a dynamic value based on criteria be better? if so, what criteria? I also added some code to detect duplicate SL levels, and a few logical fixes. I'm working on the release notes now.
I was wrong about changing the if(Profit())>0. The Error # 1 still appears in Expert tab. I commentted out the 2 lines in Redbelow and the Error is gone and has not reappeared. You were right, this print call has nothing to do with trading. Why we are seeing the double modify sl call is still a mystery.
Wackena
if(SecondTrade==true && GlobalVariableGet("FlagMode3Trade3")==1)
{
for(int y=0;y<OrdersTotal();y++)
{
OrderSelect(y, SELECT_BY_POS, MODE_TRADES);
if(OrderType()<=OP_SELL && OrderSymbol()==Symbol()&& OrderMagicNumber()==MAGICMA03)
{
if(OrderType()==OP_BUY)
{
NewSLTrade3B=OrderOpenPrice()+NormalizeDouble(((
OrderTakeProfit()-OrderOpenPrice())/2),Digits)- MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_STOPLEVEL);
//Added MarketInfo STOPLevel 5.6.6 by Daraknor to make the trades universally broker safe
if(!OrderModify(OrderTicket(),OrderOpenPrice(),NewSLTrade3B,OrderTakeProfit(),0,GreenYellow))
{
// Print("OrderModify - Error # ",GetLastError());
continue;
}
GlobalVariableSet("FlagMode3Trade3",2);
return(0);
}
if(OrderType()==OP_SELL)
{
NewSLTrade3S=OrderOpenPrice()-NormalizeDouble(((
OrderOpenPrice()-OrderTakeProfit())/2),Digits)+ MarketInfo(Symbol(),MODE_STOPLEVEL);
//Added MarketInfo STOPLevel 5.6.6 by Daraknor to make the trades universally broker safe
if(!OrderModify(OrderTicket(),OrderOpenPrice(),NewSLTrade3S,OrderTakeProfit(),0,GreenYellow))
{
// Print("OrderModify - Error # ",GetLastError());
continue;
}
GlobalVariableSet("FlagMode3Trade3",2);
return(0);
}
}
}
}
}Well here is 5.6.7a, main change between normal release and "a" is removing the "10" value. I also made the two segments that the code is called more consistent, they are flagged.
I understand why that worked then, the last trade didn't meet the threshold anymore. I'm going to remove 5.6.7 from this thread, and only have it in the dev thread.
The changes I made might have fixed the issue.