what is the problem
Feed the Freakshow.
it doesn't open any trade with 1st set file?
For "New LongPipRuns TryB_with MaxLevel.mq4" use set file
For "New LongPipRuns TryC_with MaxLevel.mq4" use set files
While I do not agree with you (Seyedmajid Masharian) on a number of your positions on the current topic (like not willing to share any of your strategies or ideas but wanting to grab from others...thats not cool at all, that's neither good nor fair really).
Nevertheless, I present here 2 "hedging" strategies or ideas that have so far, with precaution, worked for me, but far from perfect, I must admit (hence will welcome further ideas for improvement of these strategies):
a. Enter Buy#1/Sell #1 simultaneously. Price may go up or down, we dont know at this point.b. If price goes up by variable Step (75 pips for example), close Buy #1 and keep its profit in a pseudo-bank. Then enter another set of new Buy #2/Sell #2 simultaneously with a slightly higher lot that Buy #1/Sell #1. Note that we dont close Sell #1 yet. Now we have 3 active trades, Sell #1, Sell #2 and Buy #2. Now our target if for the price to go down.c. If price reverts down to Buy#1/Sell #1 entry levels, close all trades. Our net profit is the earlier closed Buy #1 in the pseudo-bank.c. If however, price goes up again by Step, close Buy #2, and send its profit to the pseudo-bank (so we now have Buy #1 and Buy #2 profits in pseudo-bank). Again, we enter a new Buy #3/Sell #3 trades simulatenously, with a slightly higher lot that Buy #2/Sell #2. Now we have active trades Sell #1, Sell #2, Sell #3 and Buy #3.d. If price reverts down to Buy#2/Sell #2 entry levels, close all trades. Our net profit is the earlier closed Buy #1 and Buy#2 profits in the pseudo-bank, MINUS Sell #1 loss. The result is a good profit given that Sell #1 lot is smaller than Buy #2 lot.d. etc etc., until there is a retracement to previous entry level or a point where we can close all with overall in profit taking into consideration the amount in pseudo-bank, then repeat again from step a.See the attached EA files. Tested for GBPUSD, EURUSD and USDJPY. Still need to be optimised for these and other instruments.
a. Developed a newer version of this EA that trades with only the real net values of virtual simultaneous Buy/Sell pseudo-positions. b. This strategy as-is is very good for ranging markets on higher timeframes M30, H1, H4. Consequently, apply range-bound market filters (ATR, BB contrition, MAs etc) and time filters to trade within those range.c. The strategy will also work well for trending markets under the condition that the trend makes at least one 20% retracement within a 500pips stretch. Consequently apply d. The strategy should work well at low risk settings for any currency pairs, but need to optimise, optimise and optimise to get best performing settings for different pairs.
GBPUSD 3yr backtest snapshot
USDJPY 3yr backtest snapshot
EURUSD 3yr backtest
I'd like to ask a couple of questions about this one
1- Why did you test only 3 years
2- Do i see no losses at all? I seen many linear curves like this one but sometimes the strategy is curve fitting and sometimes its because the EA works in a certain period of time then starts giving bad results
thanks in advance
I did not look at the code, but considering the back test charts, it is some sort of *sure fire* system. It will work anytime for any period.
The start deposits are chosen as such at this deposit level there would not be a stop out / margin call during the tested period. Would it be lower the sure fire will turn to a sure fail.
There is the catch.
the deposit level if this means the amount in $ deposited, there is nothing fancy about it, 4000$ thats a big start, or maybe i misunderstood something
but i see the LOT size can go crazy though, 700+ LOTs if its same lot size each time except for the hedge and it would still gives then i assume it's interesting
4k for the first, for other pairs 4k would bust the account.
The strategy posted does *hedge*, albeit the fake type, but the main principle is the lot size increase. A million dollar account would not be enough to sustain over time.
1. I think the market events of the past 3 years offer preliminary views of general market behaviour: taking the EURUSD as example, the prolonged trending market at first part of 2015, followed by the range-bound markets of 2016, and then breakout/trending of May-Dec 2017. Also, discrete events such as those of June and Nov. 2016 are well captured within the test range. For some strategies, 3 years good backtest is just enough, while for others at least 10 years. I wount accept as valid a 3 years backtest for a strategy that opened 30 positions in total, as an example. But more importantly, as mentioned earlier, the EAs are still work in progress: they were deprioritised to focus on more profitable works, hence yet to go through rigorous in-house backtesting procedures. And part of this procedures involve using 3 layers of backtest range to minimise uptime on non-performing EAs development: 1st layer Backtest Jan2017-CurrentDate2018; if satisfactory, do 2nd layer with increase test range Jan2015-CurrentDate2018, if satisfactory do 3rd layer Jan2010-CurrentDate2018. As it stands, the EA is in the second test layer.
2. "...sometimes its because the EA works in a certain period of time then starts giving bad results"... well, thats a possibility. The EA is presented not as a perfect solution but as crude (not crude oil) hedging idea, potentially necessitating further infusion of novel ideas to elevate its current performance level. There's definitely no curve fitting here. The source code is provided for perusal. Again, yes, it may fail for dates before the backtest dates presented if the given set files are used. Hence my emphasis on the need to optimise and determine best sets that works for all historical period matching ones trading style (3, 5, 10 or even 20 yrs...?).
"...Do i see no losses at all?..." The strategy is such that it offers no loss...cough cough!!!...:) But really, from the description, it shouldnt offer any loss unless you get margin-called due to insufficient account balance, in part due to inadequate settings.
True. For some pairs, 4k would burst the account even using the minimum broker lot.
Again, not a perfect ready-to-go-live system. Optimisations are still required to determine best operating parameters (min start deposit, start lot, step, etc etc). Also with ranging/trending market filters in place, I think there are potentials for the EA.
Good job Funmilola Mabel Odjo
thanks for sharing
Did you modify anything at all in the strategy itself "not the deposit" to make it work with other pairs, or in a different way, does the strategy work for all three pairs as a "hedging strategy" + other buy/sell entry rules for all three pairs?
Please enable the necessary setting in your browser, otherwise you will not be able to log in.