For those who are not programmers but have ideas for creating EAs, "dedicated to idea traders and programmers" - page 2
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
Let's start by making an Expert Advisor on the regular oscillator Stochastic (9,5,3)
with settings --- %K9, %D5, retardation 3(9,5,3), High/low, MA-EXP, chart period "H4"
Algorithm, open positions after crossing stochastic lines on "new candle",
there are lots, but they are less than profitable deals!
Seems to be a regular oscillator, but gives "+", tired of looking for a profit somewhere in the distance,
that's what the regular oscillator came up with.
but it's clear from the picture
but maybe it is wise to do a synthesis across all TFs...
Or this one - How do you easily and quickly distinguish a trending movement from a sideways one?
But that's not what I mean. Despite its simplicity, channels often reveal a steady trend. For example, open 2 indicators on one chart, a fast one with a period of 10-12 and a slow one with a period of 20-30 times bigger. You will see for yourself. Namely, as soon as the boundaries of the two indicators coincide, you can open a position in the direction of the indicator. However, you should remember about the following things: TF and the difference in the behavior of long and short positions. The TF is clear, because it makes sense to open a position if volatility is sufficient. But it is not so easy on a low TF. The difference in position behavior can be clearly seen using these two indicators. If long positions, as a rule, fit into 5 waves, then short ones behave as they want. There are a lot of variants. They may fly away beyond half of the channel in one touch of the bottom, and then start slapping the bottom again, like a flat stone on the water. That's basically what the ambush is with them. If with long positions one can reach even 90% of profitable ones, then with the same approach (conditions) short ones give 60-70 and less. And most importantly - differently on different data (instruments).
The problem is the only one - how to distinguish the end of the trend. As a consequence it is difficult to work out quite simple single exit conditions.
Yes, I forgot about the subject. So, the two indicators allow us to get a confirmed, but slightly delayed signal from the trend. What about a flat? There are several options. But all need to be checked and clarified. If the price hangs in one half of the width of the slow channel, it is closer to a flat. Crossing of the middle of the channel by the price is one of the signals. The first is when the indicator lines are disconnected. The second is crossing the middle of the channel, and the third is the opposite side channel lines connecting with breakdown of the channel border.
Another option is channel border change rate per one bar. I tried it literally last week. A simple condition - joining two channel borders (though with considerably different characteristics and on lower TFs) and changing of the indicator border by 10-12 points per bar gives rather confident and serious profit in the tester. However, the disadvantage of this method is obvious - a position opening should be performed in an active market phase. And it is doubtful in real trading - there will be long delays that will eat up all the profits.
There is one more quite decent method for detection of a trend. Or rather, changes of direction. And in the flat, as a rule, it doesn't work, or almost doesn't work. It is the so-called 3 candlesticks method. It is when the last extremum is considered. For example, from this candle we will look for two more candles with the minimum less, respectively, the first one has the minimum of the main candle and the second one has the minimum of the first one. As soon as the current price goes below the minimum of the left-marked candle, it means that the trend reversed. If the price goes higher, we wait for the next high. Generally speaking, we can see this pattern on the chart. But not always, of course. And it is rare to find three candles in the flat. If we set the price channel width requirement to this condition, it should be even better. I am going to check it the other day. Or maybe I should make an indicator. I need something like this to help me with the Doncian channels.
https://www.metatrader5.com/ru/terminal/help/indicators/oscillators/so
Ibid: "The Stochastic Oscillator technical indicator compares the current closing price to a range of prices over a selected time period...".
The emphasis is on the highlighted one. According to the theory of inverse dependence, this means that the market must always follow the selected (interesting, isn't it?) calculation period or we should always change this period to have objective data about the market (which actually happens when certain market indicators "stop working").
This is not an attempt to kill an idea, this is an attempt to save time for unpromising development in favor of other, possibly more successful models.
All imho.
Once you have said A, you have to say B.
The choice of entry direction is very interesting and not very correct from a practical point of view.
If this thread is read by those who stably earn on system (not necessarily automatic) trade, I think they will confirm that the choice of entry direction has no priority in the system, pay attention to betting management and you will not regret.
PS: And to build a trial advisor and the choice of entry, from the standard indicators, the parabolic is the best of all, not a fountain, but better than the others at times the algorithm of action.
Since you have said A, you have to say B.
The choice of entry direction is very interesting and not very correct from a practical point of view.
If this thread is read by those who stably earn on system (not necessarily automatic) trading, I think they will confirm that the choice of entry direction has no priority role in the system, pay attention to betting management and you will not regret.
Isn't timing and direction of entry (and exit) the same as betting management?
The rule book
Rule 1: There are no rules.
Rule 2. Rule 1 is the only rule.
(c) Ken Eagle Feather
Here is a specific application. There is a simple idea - Determining the quality of a trend
You can try to test it. Should be profitable.
Since you have said A, you have to say B.
The choice of entry direction is very interesting and not very correct from a practical point of view.
If this thread is read by those who stably earn on system (not necessarily automatic) trade, I think they will confirm that the choice of entry direction has no priority in the system, pay attention to betting management and you will not regret.
Isn't determining the timing and direction of entry (and exit) the same as managing bets?
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I call betting management capital management.
If you look at it from an open-close-open position, there is no difference between the two, it is true, but the probability is always equal to 50%, minus spread leads to negative statistics in the end, but then why so much trouble with determining the entry, it is much easier to open at random, the result is the same 50%.
Why do many people lose, because they want a lot at once, they calculate the direction correctly, but calculate the bets incorrectly, as a result the movement goes where it is supposed to, but without them, here is one example of the difference between direction selection and betting management.