Light martingale expert - gives good results (expert code attached) - page 12

New comment
 
Sart 08.02.2008 16:27
Of course, but what is the algorithm? If I knew the algorithm, I would. Maybe you can give me an idea, and at the same time, perhaps, an idea for dealing with low-reward trends. <br / translate="no">.
Of course there is a solution (both for the algorithm and for the trend). But in order to present it, please post a clear and coherent description of how your system works
1. in favourable mode
2. in unfavorable mode
on a graph with explanations. It will then be much easier to help you.
 
I, for example, stated my idea in one of my previous posts. The value of our target (pullback) should be proportional to the value of the preceding non-backward trend, i.e. it should be a certain percentage of it. This is the percentage we set as an external variable. For instance, in my developments I use 23%. If the trend keeps moving against us (increasing its length), our target value is recalculated accordingly. And together with it the size of planned profit on a trade is recalculated (increases), as well as the size of final profit taking into account the current drawdown (it decreases). As a result, if the pullback never took place, at some point, this potential final profit will become <= 0. Then we open one more order here. The volume of this order must be such as to guarantee the total resulting profit on all orders in proportion to the length of the required pullback. Everything is done in the analogous way. I hope I have explained it clearly...
Here we obtain that the order volume increases insignificantly, but the distance between the orders gradually decreases.
 
Meat:
.... If the trend keeps moving against us (increasing its length), our target size is being recalculated accordingly. And along with it the size of planned profit on a deal is recalculated
.

That's right. But there are still options to increase the probability of a favourable outcome. But it will decrease the number of deals.

Meat wrote (a):
It turns out that the volume of orders increases slightly, but the distance between the orders gradually decreases

I do not quite understand how it is insignificant (order volume)?


 
Xadviser:

it is not very clear how it is insignificant (order volume)?

Well, I meant that the volume of each successive order is not much bigger than the previous one. I.e. it is not about doubling the bet as in classic martingale. And it is safer for the deposit.
 
Meat:
Well, I mean that the volume of each successive order is slightly bigger than the previous one. I.e., we are not dealing with doubling of a rate as it is in classic . And it is safer for the deposit.

Maybe I misunderstood something written above, but if we are talking about the EA in this thread, it is not quite clear how the next order, not much bigger than the previous one, will cover 77 points of loss of the previous order (100 - 23) with twenty-three points of pullback profit. Or we are speaking about some other trading strategy and not about martingale?

I would be grateful for a more detailed explanation.

Regards. Eugene.

 
jinn2000:
Meat:

Well, I mean that the volume of each successive order is not much larger than the previous one. I.e., it's not about doubling the bet as it is in classic . It is safer for the deposit.

Maybe I misunderstood something written above, but if we are talking about the EA in this thread, it is not quite clear how the next order, not much bigger than the previous one, will cover 77 points of loss of the previous order (100 - 23) with twenty-three points of pullback profit. Or we are speaking about some other trading strategy and not about martingale?



I would be grateful for a more detailed explanation.



Regards. Yevgeniy.

 
jinn2000:

Maybe I misunderstood something written above, but if we are talking about the EA in this thread, it is not quite clear how the next order, not much bigger than the previous one, will cover 77 points of loss of the previous order (100 - 23) with twenty-three points of profit rollback. Or are we talking about some other trading strategy than martingale?

Well, I didn't mean exactly the Expert Advisor I was talking about in this thread. I just gave my ideas about how to improve this EA. I mean, lots do increase aggressively, because I have to cover a large loss, like you mention. Besides, everything is set manually, and the program should calculate all necessary parameters of orders by itself.
 
I don't understand the conversation on the last page.
As far as I'm concerned, this EA will not fight low pullback trends in any way. You will struggle with a simple calculation of the placed orders: the open order should be larger than the open one by at least 10 to 15%. It can be larger, but in this case TP levels stretch and the trades are closed much less frequently. There is no sense. Look at what I have. It is practically universal in terms of stakes, but some pairs require TP correction. In general I have enough depo for all pairs. At the moment I have it on three pairs. No remarks.
Files:
eurusdandeuraud.zip  1 kb
 
fedor:
I don't understand the conversation on the last page.
As far as I'm concerned this EA is not going to fight low pullback trends in any way.
I think you got it right. Of course it will not. This is what the author of this thread is talking about.
Meat suggested the variant (and I support him in it) not to fight small backward trends, but to increase the probability of compliance with the initial conditions, thus reducing the risk associated with a sharp increase in the bet (compared to the classical martingale). That is, to reduce the conditions to no struggle or at least to its mimicry.
In order to help the author it is necessary to understand the logic of his EA with indication of favourable and unfavourable conditions of its operation, as I mentioned above. There are options.
Explain the data in your file, please. It's not clear from it what you have installed. (Sorry, it's set :-))
 
Xadviser:
fedor:

I do not understand the discussion on the last page.

In my opinion, this EA will not fight low-return trends in any way.
I think you got it right. Of course it will not. This is what the author of this thread is talking about.

Meat suggested the variant (and I support him in it) not to fight small backward trends, but to increase the probability of compliance with the initial conditions, thus reducing the risk associated with a sharp increase in the bet (compared to the classical martingale). That is, to reduce the conditions to no struggle or at least to its mimicry.

In order to help the author it is necessary to understand the logic of his EA with indication of favourable and unfavourable conditions of its operation, as I mentioned above. There are options.

Explain the data in your file, please. It's not clear from it what you have. (sorry established :-))
Guys no maths. The first four orders are designed to make as much profit as possible. They work most often. The next ones are designed in such a way that they would at least increase profit, i.e. 2-4 dollars per cent account. It is not enough for such a total lot. For example, the fifth total lot to be placed is 0.2+0.2+0.5+0.8+1.6=3.1. The drawdown is already felt from this lot. There is a great danger of small reversal trend. I begin to increase the opening levels. I insure. As a result, the second order of 9 lots has triggered once on my history. Orders 0-7 trigger in 99% of cases.
By the way. I misnamed the settings: they are for EUR/YEN and EUR/AUD. The Expert Advisor showed the best results on cross pairs.
The result of two weeks on three pairs is slightly over 30 dollars. That is pretty good for a cent account.
One more thing, on the previous page rightly said about error in 7 orders closing. I increased the number of orders (lines) to 14. I was running my 4-core on history for two days. There were no errors on any of the pairs. With these settings and depo 150000 it doesn't always show considerable profit, but it certainly does not fail to lose. And for 50% of pairs the deposit of 25000 is enough.
If you lay out a mathematically sound setup that will give more profit with less risk - then only hyp-hyp-hyp-hyp-URRA.
1...56789101112131415
New comment
Reason: