Electra EA ** Released to Elite Members ** - page 52
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
Electra v1.17 EA
I have not quite understood how the application of this version fits in with desktop station versus RAS. Is 1.17 only for RAS or can it alternatively be used on desktop station? I also assume that the Absolute Strength Indicator is loaded into experts/indicators folder. What should it look like when it is loaded onto a chart? I just get a series of horizontal dashes in different colors.
Which settings of Electra I am using for RAS? Same settings which I posted here on this thread somewhere.
If you are referring to post #488, in your parameter window, though stating "Electra v1.17", there are no 3 entry choices like in the version I downloaded:
1->Classical(MA)entries
2->Absolute strength entries
3->Stochastic entries
Several users asked for that, but there is no clear answer. Mladen says something about "Absolut strength entries" (entry 2?), but there is no confirmation from your side.
There is another entry at the bottom, called "AbsStrengthFrame = 240", which doesn't show up in your parameters either (?), and nobody mentions it.
Last not least, what is your reference starting balance in RAS? It is important to know, so we can use the lots-multiplier correctly. When I start with $10,000, for example, I get much smaller lotsizes than yours on RAS. What do you use? $100,000 ? (goosh! - I think I'm in the middle of a gang of millionaires!)
Wishing you a good day.
Christoph
...
"I just get a series of horizontal dashes in different colors"
That is all that an EA needs and that version of indicator is changed to accommodate EA needs. EA needs to distinguish between some states of the market and it does using those dashes
regards
mladen
I have not quite understood how the application of this version fits in with desktop station versus RAS. Is 1.17 only for RAS or can it alternatively be used on desktop station? I also assume that the Absolute Strength Indicator is loaded into experts/indicators folder. What should it look like when it is loaded onto a chart? I just get a series of horizontal dashes in different colors.
It is the settings.
...
AbsoluteStrengthFrame is by default 240 (4H) and it is used by the RAS ea too (ND uses an intermediate version on RAS - his option UseClassicalEntry means that electra is using 4H AbsoluteStrength as entry. We tested that version of electra, and after some parameter modifications (in order to give more control to user), present one was posted here. The current version here works exactly the same way as the RAS version, but with additional options) .
Of much smaller lot sizes : lots are calculated according to risk (default is 0.5%) and free margin - so, with smaller account or smaller risks, lots must be smaller. If you want to increase position sizes without changing account size, change the risk, or turn the MM of and use fixed lot sizes of your choice. (Issues of electra and its requirements regarding minimal account size were discussed over and over in this thread).
regards
mladen
If you are referring to post #488, in your parameter window, though stating "Electra v1.17", there are no 3 entry choices like in the version I downloaded:
1->Classical(MA)entries
2->Absolute strength entries
3->Stochastic entries
Several users asked for that, but there is no clear answer. Mladen says something about "Absolut strength entries" (entry 2?), but there is no confirmation from your side.
There is another entry at the bottom, called "AbsStrengthFrame = 240", which doesn't show up in your parameters either (?), and nobody mentions it.
Last not least, what is your reference starting balance in RAS? It is important to know, so we can use the lots-multiplier correctly. When I start with $10,000, for example, I get much smaller lotsizes than yours on RAS. What do you use? $100,000 ? (goosh! - I think I'm in the middle of a gang of millionaires!)
Wishing you a good day.
ChristophElectra in Forex-TSD versus Electra in RAS
Hi,
This is my first post to a thread so sorry if it shows my ignorance or lack of experience.
I would like to understand some more about Electra and I have some basic questions.
I see that Electra EA was first introduced by project1972 as v1.10 and has evolved to v1.17, maintained by mladen. Are the two the same person?
On the other hand, the RAS signal belongs to Holger. Is Holger the same as mladen, or perhaps newdigital?
OK, so perhaps that's not very important, so here are my main questions: are Electra on this thread and ELectra Absolute PET 1 on RAS the same? If yes, which version of the Forex-TSD Electra is the RAS signal?
Regards,
Andrei
...
As far as I know, I am not project1972
:):)
Kidding aside, I think it is visible even from the style of writing the code. And if you see my reactions on "alter egos" of some of "distinguished members of forex community"
you also can conclude what do I think of using multiple names/aliases
________________________________
Of holger name, I think it is better that ND tells you about it
Of RAS version : we already answered - 1.17 (on RAS one needs to give some name to distinguish one EA from another, hence those name changes - Electra Absolute PET 1 would mean : "electra based on absolute strength index and 1% PercentEquityTrailing")
regards
mladen
Hi,
This is my first post to a thread so sorry if it shows my ignorance or lack of experience.
I would like to understand some more about Electra and I have some basic questions.
I see that Electra EA was first introduced by project1972 as v1.10 and has evolved to v1.17, maintained by mladen. Are the two the same person?
On the other hand, the RAS signal belongs to Holger. Is Holger the same as mladen, or perhaps newdigital?
OK, so perhaps that's not very important, so here are my main questions: are Electra on this thread and ELectra Absolute PET 1 on RAS the same? If yes, which version of the Forex-TSD Electra is the RAS signal?
Regards,
AndreiHi,
after weeks of just reading and enjoying the valuable information here, this is my first post.
Actually I thought that when trading all 19 pairs the risk should be minimized.
So I just went through the weekly performance of the Electra EA and was surprised to see that the worst weekly performance was about -1900 pips (in 2nd week of march 2008). (BTW: the excel sheet MTF_or_martingale.. shows 2007 on the left side instead of 2008 I think)
Comparing the performance of all 19 pairs with the performance of the EURUSD pair only, it shows that the worst weekly performance was only -414 and lost pips in a row was only -538 for EURUSD. So way better than what all 19 pairs show together.
Since the Electra EA is performing very well for EURUSD in a consistent way and over a time frame of about 20 months already, I wonder why one should trade all 19 pairs. The system seems to be excellent for EURUSD.
Does my question make sense or do I miss anything here?
When installing the EA I came over the 'Not enough money to trade safely..' issue. Don't worry I won't ask what to do
It is just strange (not intuitive) for me that one solution is by increasing the risk. One cannot say that by increasing the risk it is safer to trade. I miss the logic here.
The code shows that the message 'Not enough money ..' only appears if Lots < MinLots * 4. So here I wonder why the lot size has to be smaller than 4 times Minlot and not 3 or 2 times.
In my demo case Minlot is 0.1 so Lot size needs to be equal or higher than 0.4 to get the message 'Not enough ..' removed. So with a 10k account and assuming an ATR of 200 for the last 20 days and pipvalue= 1 the risk needs to be 0.8 at least to get a Lots value of 0.4.
So my understanding is that if you would like to trade safer than with 0.4 lots you need to disable MM and trade with a fix lot size lower than 0.4.
Am I right or do I miss anything?
Because of protecting account feature.
For example, EA will close all open trades for account (for all the pairs) if it will be -2,000 dollars for equity (for example).
It is possible for 19 pairs for example and it may be often sometimes.
But if we trade EURUSD so can you imagine which drawdown should be using 0.01 lot size to have -2,000 dollars in loss for open trades bu equity (-2,000 as an example)?
Because this EA is protecting the whole account for all the pairs.
Some people subscribed to RAS trading just 1 pairs (other pairs just 'Pause' for trading) and as I am using 19 pairs with protected account sop they may have same protection trading 1 pairs only.
Just an idea but I do not know ...
"The code shows that the message 'Not enough money ..' only appears if Lots < MinLots * 4."
That part (the MinLot*4) is a part of an original Electra and we decided not to change it (because of predicted max 4 exit steps which require at least MinLot for each exit). So the exit strategy is dictating the entry size too
Electra is almost all about exiting. If you disable that feature (by altering it's possible number of exits) than it is not the intended Electra MM any more. You can do it, of course (it is your decision after all, and that is why options are built in such a way you can do it) It is entirely up to you how you use Electra
regards
mladen
Hi,
after weeks of just reading and enjoying the valuable information here, this is my first post.
Actually I thought that when trading all 19 pairs the risk should be minimized.
So I just went through the weekly performance of the Electra EA and was surprised to see that the worst weekly performance was about -1900 pips (in 2nd week of march 2008). (BTW: the excel sheet MTF_or_martingale.. shows 2007 on the left side instead of 2008 I think)
Comparing the performance of all 19 pairs with the performance of the EURUSD pair only, it shows that the worst weekly performance was only -414 and lost pips in a row was only -538 for EURUSD. So way better than what all 19 pairs show together.
Since the Electra EA is performing very well for EURUSD in a consistent way and over a time frame of about 20 months already, I wonder why one should trade all 19 pairs. The system seems to be excellent for EURUSD.
Does my question make sense or do I miss anything here?
When installing the EA I came over the 'Not enough money to trade safely..' issue. Don't worry I won't ask what to do
It is just strange (not intuitive) for me that one solution is by increasing the risk. One cannot say that by increasing the risk it is safer to trade. I miss the logic here.
The code shows that the message 'Not enough money ..' only appears if Lots < MinLots * 4. So here I wonder why the lot size has to be smaller than 4 times Minlot and not 3 or 2 times.
In my demo case Minlot is 0.1 so Lot size needs to be equal or higher than 0.4 to get the message 'Not enough ..' removed. So with a 10k account and assuming an ATR of 200 for the last 20 days and pipvalue= 1 the risk needs to be 0.8 at least to get a Lots value of 0.4.
So my understanding is that if you would like to trade safer than with 0.4 lots you need to disable MM and trade with a fix lot size lower than 0.4.
Am I right or do I miss anything?