V1andV2 Hedged EA: Beautiful Equity Curve - page 17
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
Journal reports no errors, just a repetition of this as date/ time increments:
"(Date, Time), EA, Pair, 15M, Spread=2, c=0"
InitLots set to .01
Journal reports no errors, just a repetition of this as date/ time increments:
"(Date, Time), EA, Pair, 15M, Spread=2, c=0"
InitLots set to .01Try testing a newer version with lotsizes at 0.1 (fifthelement version is nice)
The old ones, even if there is an error, won't report it.
hhsmoney, some brokers only support 0.1 lot-size increments, whereas the V1/V2 EAs start with 0.01 (a microlot), so it wouldn't work in that case. Some brokers provide micro/nano lot accounts at special request; I don't know about FXDD.
Ok zuijlen, so my suspicion was correct. Thanks for clarifying.
FXDD does offer micro accts. You'll normally start with mini/standard acct. If you want micro accts, you'll have to ask for it.
I have heard some bad things about IBFX. I say we try to do forward test using FXDD so that we are all on the same page.
Hi,
I've downloaded every EA version posted on this thread, none of them will backtest on any platform.
I'm not new to MT backtesting, so everything is set up correctly...
The timeline advances but there are no results whatsoever.
I tried the other recommendations like unchecking "use date", etc., but still nothing.
I have plenty of data and many platforms - nothing.
Any help appreciated,
Thanks.
WWNW, the version I posted here earlier should work. It's what I used to generate the backtest results that you see on that post. Don't use any other broker than IBFX as it will only work on IBFX accts currently.
I have heard some bad things about IBFX. I say we try to do forward test using FXDD so that we are all on the same page.
I have been testing V1/V2 on IBFX without problems (see my forward testing statement in Post #47) . In fact, I'm testing several unrelated EAs on IBFX. I've had problems in the past, but recently everything seems quite stable.
What if we just state which broker we are using when we post a statement? It should work about the same for different brokers, shouldn't it?
Thanks!
hhsmoney,
Thanks much, that did it; I needed IBFX.
Thinking Out Loud
A few things.
1) I think that an anti-martingale strategy would be more appropriate. That is, you increase your lots after a win and not a loss. With trade dependency sequence analysis you can analyze trade dependency and create a call to a calculation that will modify your position on the fly. For example, if the system is analyzed to create a sequence of three consecutive wins and then followed by four consecutive losses -- you have a calculation basis on how and where to dynamically modify (trade to trade) position size. It's called positive and negative dependency. It's a moving target but that is dynamic also.
2) If you were to stay with a long/short hedged strategy, It would be prudent to make it part of a larger trade plan. For example, the hedge could be 1/3 of a complete plan. 1/3 hedge, 1/3 long trend, 1/3 short trend. The other 2/3s could be anything such as 1/3 breakout etc. Remember -- it's absolute, TOTAL returns.
3) I would not attempt this without the 5% take profit.
4) You could be much more exotic. Such as calling out to purchase double one touch options as insurance in case of a runaway trend.
5) Why do you have to double your bet on a loss? You can dynamically adjust the increase in lot size after a loss predicated on many factors such as Fibonacci projections on the losing move. You can dynamically adjust on risk, on account size, and against the percentage you have as a take profit. This alone will greatly mitigate the risk of account blow-up.
Anyways, thinking out loud. Do not be discouraged. You people are on "A" right track. Think about this, hedge funds aka as HEDGE funds, do this type of thing all the time and it will work if carefully designed and implemented -- trust me....
I have access to a bunch of proppelerheads for this type of thing and might just start a spec sheet for the trade logic. I can't ask for endless favors and pester them so it has to be major. If I do, I'll bring it back here to you guys.
I have been testing V1/V2 on IBFX without problems (see my forward testing statement in Post #47) . In fact, I'm testing several unrelated EAs on IBFX. I've had problems in the past, but recently everything seems quite stable. What if we just state which broker we are using when we post a statement? It should work about the same for different brokers, shouldn't it?
Now that I think about it, since the EA is based on price alone, the difference should be very little among brokers, atleast in demo. The problem comes when/if you go live. There's been many complaints on this forum (like this one for example) about IBFX's server freeze, unreasonable widening spreads, requotes, stops hunting...etc, all of which will have affects on the EA. I can't confirm any of those things that people complained about in regards to IBFX since I haven't used them until now, but what I can confirm in the short time I have used them is that their server sure is alot slower. Now, I'm not saying FXDD is hassle-free. In fact, I've heard the same issues with FXDD as well, but not as bad as IBFX.
Our eventual goal is to trade this EA live profitably, so with forward thinking in mind, why not start with a broker that you're going to go live with?
Edit: Ooopps, forgot to mention.... In the link I posted above, also read MiniMe's post below aleccoh. Talks about how most brokers are really against us. Even the MT4 platform we use are really designed to benefit the brokers, not us. Kind of scary if you think about it.