Martingale EA - page 47
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
Folks,
wolfe is a kind soul. But please remember to simply state what you are seeing as testers. We sometimes get very excited and forget that wolfe is not working for us, but he is working for himself. He wants a profitable EA as bad as you and as he stated he is doing this to get one. I think that we should talk privatley later about sending him a gift after the kayvan EA is polished...eventhough he does not want one.
The fill problems and slippage there is nothing that can be done. So perhaps kayvans method is best left to manual trading.
Other coders can look at wolfes work if he permits it and the ordersend routine can be checked...but there really is not much more that can be done unless the code could be cleaned up and made more efficient.
Please be polite and when asking wolfe for upgrades be kind and realize he has a family and kids and does this after he comes home from a full time job. Slow down folks, the sky is not falling.
ESThanks for setting the record strait ES. You're a good guy.
I concur ES
I've attached a statement as proof.
21326633 2008.02.14 06:35 buy 0.50 gbpusd 1.9627 0.0000 0.0000 2008.02.15 04:47 1.9687 0.00 0.00 3.25 300.00
All trade BELOW this one are tied to the new EA. All the trades above were with the previous version of the EA (TFX_kayvan_v1). As you can see it did catch some profitable trades, but wasn't able to close them. I used the exact same settings for both EAs.
statement followsNot a bad looking statement allinvain. At least something seems to be going right. I realize there are some bugs in the system as it is right now, with time and patience they will be worked out.
usually at which time you are on line , wolfe? in gmt please.
Usually sometime between 12:00AM and 05:00AM GMT.
may i have your id in yahoo messenger ? mine is farzaadi
Don't have a yahoo messenger ID.
Q. what slippage option does in ea ? please give me an example . sorry for such a questions .
Your slippage is an external variable in your EA. It is the amount of pip difference you will accept an order quote from when you sent your request. You must allow for some slippage or most of your orders will not go through. Especially in a fast moving market.
In my opinion, the sells should not trigger above the value of the highest sell? - ( vice- versa for buys). This will make this EA robust.
This is a good idea to try, I had even started leaning in this direction.
Basically, a sell would not be triggered above the first opened sell order in a cycle, and a buy would not be triggered below the first opened buy order.
What do you guys think? Should we try this?
ok, I haven't followed this in great detail
, so feel free to ignore me, but technically, a sell at a higher level than a prior sell also has a higher chance of success, so the proposed principle seems rather counter-intuitive to me.
ok, I haven't followed this in great detail
The idea was if you have a starting short order, say at 1.500, you don't layer on another short order if current price is > 1.500. The opposite would be in place for long orders.
Any ideas you have on this are appreciated, even if you disagree. I respect your opinions.
mmm; I looked at the images of post #456, which I assume illustrates the operation, and there, if I applied the rule, then the bad longs would not be "masked" by good shorts, and the resulting profit would be far more in the red....
So I think there must be a lot more to the intuition behind the rule than what the rule expresses.
mmm, good point ralph.
Maybe the opposite rule is better? Because then the combined position is an improved position with the combined risk staying the same.
In detail:
1) the first sell is at p0 of v0 lots with stop s0 pips, making the risk s0*v0.
2) the second sell is at p1 of v1 lots with stop s1 pips, making the risk s1*v1
=) the combined position is at p=(p0+p1)/2 with lots v0+v1 and risk complex:
(s0-N/2)*v0+(s1+N/2)*v1 where N is the pips difference p1-p0, but that translates into: s0*v0+s1*v1-N/2*v0+N/2*v1 = s0*v0+s1*v1
edit: that's only if v0=v1... hmm
Thus, the combined risk is the plain sum of the individual risks regardless of what the combined position entry is. Therefore it seems to make sense to only improve the combined position entry.
The general risk is: s0*v0+s1*v1 + N/2*(v1-v0)
i.e. the risk side is improved by using successively smaller lot size...
Maybe the opposite rule is better? Because then the combined position is an improved position with the combined risk staying the same.
In detail:
1) the first sell is at p0 of v0 lots with stop s0 pips, making the risk s0*v0.
2) the second sell is at p1 of v1 lots with stop s1 pips, making the risk s1*v1
=) the combined position is at p=(p0+p1)/2 with lots v0+v1 and risk complex:
(s0-N/2)*v0+(s1+N/2)*v1 where N is the pips difference p1-p0, but that translates into: s0*v0+s1*v1-N/2*v0+N/2*v1 = s0*v0+s1*v1
edit: that's only if v0=v1... hmm
Thus, the combined risk is the plain sum of the individual risks regardless of what the combined position entry is. Therefore it seems to make sense to only improve the combined position entry.
The general risk is: s0*v0+s1*v1 + N/2*(v1-v0)
i.e. the risk side is improved by using successively smaller lot size...That's an interesting look at it. I'm still trying to let that sink in. A successively smaller lot size, something I haven't thought about.
I,ve got to think about this for a while, to be sure I understand.