Martingale EA - page 4

WNW
632
WNW  

May have had slippage set too tight...

[Deleted]  

wolfe,

First of all thanks for your martingale EA. I am not a big fan of martingale, but this one is safer than some others when using 0.01 lot size increment. I believe you need a progression to be able to get out of the trade faster or I would use 0 there.

Since there is not any change from trade set to the next trade set as far as MM, why do you use a percent for TP and SL?

My point being is that there really is not any change in the progression or the start...why does the TP and the SL grow?

I suggest that perhaps you consider those fields to be fixed dollars and not percents.

ES

wolfe
1037
wolfe  
WNW:
May have had slippage set too tight...

Hopefully that was the problem.

wolfe
1037
wolfe  
ElectricSavant:
wolfe,

First of all thanks for your martingale EA. I am not a big fan of martingale, but this one is safer than some others when using 0.01 lot size increment. I believe you need a progression to be able to get out of the trade faster or I would use 0 there.

Since there is not any change from trade set to the next trade set as far as MM, why do you use a percent for TP and SL?

My point being is that there really is not any change in the progression or the start...why does the TP and the SL grow?

I suggest that perhaps you consider those fields to be fixed dollars and not percents.

ES

I could look at that. The EA was not my idea. It is the way it is because I tried to stick to the criteria of the person with the idea.

I'm not a big martingale fan either. We can change the EA.

[Deleted]  

wolfe,

I just wanted to share what I have so far as you asked for feedback..

I am testing your EA and living with it. I find it very similar to Blackbird, but it is wider in its choices.

Let me reiterate that if the user does not step up his exposure, then the Global TP and SL should not be stepping up with a percent of banked...

ES

wolfe:
I could look at that. The EA was not my idea. It is the way it is because I tried to stick to the criteria of the person with the idea. I'm not a big martingale fan either. We can change the EA.
[Deleted]  

wolfe,

In the back of my mind...it would be nice to just get rid of the MA for the entry...or leave it as an option...

But...

For entry... allow the user to enter in a price long and a price short to cause this to be a breakout entry ...call it the BOEntryOption...the other side of the leg would be cancled after the direction is decided. Then the EA carries on with its present Next Trade reversing logic.

ES

omelette
784
omelette  
ElectricSavant:
wolfe,

I just wanted to share what I have so far as you asked for feedback..

I am testing your EA and living with it. I find it very similar to Blackbird, but it is wider in its choices.

Let me reiterate that if the user does not step up his exposure, then the Global TP and SL should not be stepping up with a percent of banked...

ES

I haven't looked at how this EA differs from other martingalers, apart from noting that it does not actually martingale (incremental increases, rather than doubling-up) - but you MUST increase the pips range in order to profit when you close a series of any length, otherwise the series may close successfully, but it will be at a loss! This is in effect, increasing your TP. Reducing your risk by incremental increases requires you to 'compensate' by increasing the range price must move before you may close profitably, everything comes at a price...

Or am I completely off-base here?...

[Deleted]  

If you do not adjust the inputs in the EA...then it simply rinses and repeats. Assuming the progression allows for the TP....why would it then increase for the next identical restart? A percent increases the tp automatically assuming successive global TP's...the only reason for an increase would be larger exposure...or other progressive changes....

I think what you are failing to see...this is a global intrument only "close all" we are talking about...heck use a maxtrades of 1000 to give it room to work...it comes down to how long you want to wait....trading a single instrument like the USD/JPY will eventually give you the trend you need with 0.01 lot increments. Cable could be another candidate as long as you have the next trade set up correctly (use percent of ATR)

ES

omelette:
I haven't looked at how this EA differs from other martingalers, apart from noting that it does not actually martingale (incremental increases, rather than doubling-up) - but you MUST increase the pips range in order to profit when you close a series of any length, otherwise the series may close successfully, but it will be at a loss! This is in effect, increasing your TP. Reducing your risk by incremental increases requires you to 'compensate' by increasing the range price must move before you may close profitably, everything comes at a price... Or am I completely off-base here?...
[Deleted]  

omy..I made some late edits to my post...please re-read...

ES

[Deleted]  

Martingale does not require doubling up to be considered martingale...a progression or a series of progression (rising and falling) is all that is needed..

Mathematical increases can be achieved several ways...0.01 lot increments does not mean that the martinglae in removed...it is just a gentle progression....

The grid this EA demonstrates allows for pyramiding...where the Blackbird does not...This EA will allow trades in the same direction according to how strong the trend develops and how the next trade is inputted.

Again, I am not a big fan of martingale as I believe there will come a day it blows up...But this EA would require the instrument to really chop around for a very long time until it ran out of margin (assuming the 0.01 increment input and proper next trade gap)...I cannot find an instance where this has happened historically yet....the problem is the lenghth of the wait and the yield on the account....

ES

WNW:
First, there is a Martingale option, it will double-up.

I've been using this type of grid for quite awhile, and my experience does not bear out your comments.

Eventually price simply moves far enough that one side has more winning lots than the other, thereby creating a profit.

As I said previously, when you do use lot incrementing you can risk a loss in a fast market due to the increased leverage at work.

There is no need for a "dynamic" grid.