AutoGraf Series 4 - MQL features. - page 11
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
But... if we look at the performance of the same instruments from the point of view of breakeven on multiple orders...
You have to separate the flies from the cutlets here.
An instrument is an order belonging. Instruments know nothing of twin order communities of boys or girls.
The question, cat. You raise is the prerogative of the strategy, not the tool.
For this purpose go to AT.
------------
Anticipating, I can add that in my opinion, the direction of thought is very right. It is in this direction that we must develop.
There should be (and have to be in nature) "complicated tools" of the kind built on the basis of the behavioral primitives - the tools presented in this program. However, it needs a little more work. You need a powerful development environment. 4K is not really suitable for this purpose. In my work, I seem to have reached two limits: first, the limit of the programmer's physical capabilities, and second, the limit of the platform's technical capabilities. You could add a couple more primitives if you really wanted to, but fundamentally extending the capabilities of the program is very difficult.
Will 5 give us something?) Then we'll talk.
---
I've been wanting an article on this topic for a long time, but I have no time for everything...
Инструменты ничего не знают о сообществах близнецов-ордеров мальчиков или девочек.
I'm not suggesting that they should be given this knowledge, let them stay in the dark, it's better that way. I am suggesting that they should be "unbound" a little, that they should not be restricted from doing what they are already capable of doing. In this particular case, the tool only needs to extend its range by negative values, that's all. I.e. so that Ds and St can have negative values, what prevents this? In my non-programmer opinion, nothing.
The question you raise is a prerogative. The question you raise is the prerogative of the strategy, not the tool.
For this purpose you should go to AT.
Exactly, a strategy, but not a system. Strategy, like the market itself, can change quite often and drastically, and there can be many of them, and many have not even been born in our heads yet. AutoGraph, in my opinion, has enormous potential as a visual editor for MQL4 (in part), which may allow normal mortal trader not going into this programming language at all to automate / semi-automate not complicated actions (and perhaps even complicated or even very complicated, If you allow us to do it, of course, giving flexibility to the tools, and perhaps adding a few more), based on a trading strategy and the working TF, with a couple of clicks of the mouse, and that's the beauty, the highlight if you will, of AutoGraph.
Welcome to the AT, you say?
It's sad, honestly. With more flexible tools already in place, I really can automate my actions hours/days in advance, with a couple of mouse clicks, based on my current strategy, and occasionally monitor and, if necessary, adjust tools as the situation demands.
And you are sending me to the AT :)
I can explain my vision in more detail, if you are interested :)
I disagree on principle.
If such an instrument is to be made, it should be a separate instrument.
Instr. 14 could be a prototype. 14. It seems to be the only one, but it is not a warrant tool. It knows everything about orders. We could create a unifying Stop_0_all_orders similar to it. So, this tool should have special features - it would review the orders and know which orders have what stops.
If we want this tool not to do just anything, we should give it some intelligence. Namely, we should teach it to calculate a breakeven price (for an uncommitted amount of orders), the maximum allowable market price at which it can start "to bring the boys family to breakeven", tell it how it should behave if the rate suddenly changes during the process, in both directions (where there are profits...). In addition, you must teach the dispatcher to understand the role of this tool in the general composition of instruments, namely, if the situation changes, then to stop its execution, and shift attention to other instruments...
In short, what we are talking about is useful, necessary, but not 4 and 5 instruments is the case. But, for example, instruments 25:)
---
By the way, you are in vain not wanting to look towards AT. Turn on the AT in the visual tester, see how it handles the instruments. From AT you can expose, remove and reconfigure any tool.
In the library directory there are ready-made examples of controlling all instruments from AT. All files have the same name (and the subdirectory names contain the instr. digits). Take from the subdirectory Example_AT any file AG_AT.ex4 and replace the one in the library directory, then restart AutoGraf (MT is not required). Run, look, read comments to the code (code in file AG_AT.mq4). The general idea would be understandable even to non-programmer.
Your schedule can be stored in the AT and control the process from there. And at the right time, you can disable the AT and do it manually.
2 в 1. Here.
Sergey, alexx_v is not talking about that.
What is meant is the possibility to move the SL not when the profit is reached but when the loss is reduced. And not to breakeven, but to a set level.
For example: we have an open buy position (one) without the SL. The price decreases by 200 pips. The user allows the rollover to no loss, but he sets the Take Profit level = -50, and the SL level = -100. When the position loss becomes = -50 (price rises 150 pips), the SL is moved to the "open price - 100 pips" level ("current price - 50 pips").
If I'm saying something wrong, sorry ;) I haven't tried Autograph myself yet, no time.
Sergey, alexx_v is not talking about that.
What is meant is the possibility to move the SL not when profit is reached, but when loss is reduced. And not to breakeven, but to a set level.
For example: we have an open buy position (one) without the SL. The price decreases by 200 pips. The user allows the rollover to no loss, but he sets the Take Profit level = -50, and the SL level = -100. When the position loss becomes = -50 (price rises 150 pips), the SL is moved to the "open price - 100 pips" level ("current price - 50 pips").
If I'm saying something wrong, sorry ;) I haven't tried it myself yet, no time.
The idea is clear. In cases like this, there is often a seemingly obvious, but in reality, ineffective or unusable idea on the surface. The conceptual objection I made above.
And the technical solution to get the desired result is simple: we use tools 1 and 2. We place them on the SL of the orders, set the required distance and the required modification step. When the price is reached, they will all be successively executed. And they will reset SL to the specified price. To be sure, you can support them with 6 and 7 tools.
Just look at how it is set up.
Sergei, do you know how I see AutoGraph? :) simple and humble, in one word? - LEGO... :)
Tools are LEGO cubes, with their own settings and functions. And I can assemble from these bricks everything that comes to my mind and in any sequence and quickly, on the fly, of course, as long as it does not contradict logic and common sense. And WYSIWYG is at the top of the list.
In principle, Autograf already has almost all of this, but not quite yet. But the potential is there and it's huge! And whether it will possess it depends on you, on whether you agree with the concept.
Let's go back to our tools and I'll try to explain that I don't need a new tool, not at all, and that's not what I wanted to say.
Here we have cubes 4 and 5, from the above example, and we can attach them to the basis, i.e. trades. And I suggest to you - let's give these cubes some flexibility and versatility, if you like. For what purpose? I will explain as I go along.
In principle, you can change the properties of the tool, I see no problem with that. And there's a reason for that too, it's as follows:
Если такой инструмент и делать, то это должен быть отдельный инструмент.
Why do we need to create one more cube 4, but more complex? Why should we create one more tool that will basically duplicate an already existing one but must be modified for a certain task? Because there is already a ready one - 4. It just needs to be explained that the trader will decide by himself/herself what the breakeven point for this particular trade is - +1 point or -25, and that's all. The task of the tool is to clearly perform its function and self-liquidate :) But... here begins the most interesting part, let's go directly to LEGO :)
tell it how it should behave if the course suddenly changes, both "there" and "not there" (where "there" is profits...)
right :) and the beauty of LEGO is that the dice add up any way you want :)
Instead of creating a new - essentially useless, complicatedly complicated - cube, let's better attach cube 1 to existing cube 4, pre-setting it :) And what do we get? That very sophisticated cube you suggested :)
And in this case, we don't have to explain to the new, more complicated cube 4 what to do IF.
Tool 4 will do its job and pass the baton to tool 1, which will pull up the stop while it can, and that's it :)
And if we think the stop will trigger at the upper limit of the channel, for example, and the price will go down, what is the logical thing to do? Right, it's Lego, we can attach cube 1 to cube 21 for example, and that's it :) Watch a movie, drink wine, play dominoes - whatever you like :)
Is it possible to realize this task, a simple one, very quickly, on the fly, without knowledge of language, for an ordinary trader via AT?
The question is, is it really necessary to use AT? After all, LEGO is simpler, faster, and we almost have it. :)
А техническое решение для получения желаемого результата простое: использовать инструменты 1 и 2. Выставляем их на SL ордеров, задаём нужную дистанцию преследования и нужный шаг модификации. При достижении цены исполнеия они все последовательно исполнятся. И переставят SL на заданную цену. Для верности можно подпереть их 6 и 7 инструментами.
It won't work... if you're talking about my example, of course.
If we're talking about my example, of course we won't place the pull-up until the stop orders appear and they won't until the price reaches the necessary level, and when it does, a stop will only be placed for the buy order, because the buy order above is controlled by a 4 tool, while the EA does not understand that our -25 points level is a breakeven :) It's not that he doesn't understand it - he just cannot do it.He just can't do it, because he has no idea that he can do it, he's not even trained, he's not even allowed to do it :)
alexx_v, I understand you very well.
Perhaps a diversity of thought, such as you and I have, leads to a diversity of goods, phenomena and attitudes. And this is good.
Legos, yes, that's a good analogy. At the same time, every game, like lego or chess, has to have predetermined properties. Here I would like to point out that every complex object must be composed according to certain rules. And, importantly, these rules must often be understood, not invented. It is assumed that a certain object has its remarkable properties even before an external observer agrees that the object is harmonious.
Well, let's speculate:) Let us look at the world from the point of view of harmony. And try to notice the most general patterns.
Let us imagine that we and Vmy are sitting somewhere in the countryside and playing chess. Two healthy, self conscious men. Our aim is to enjoy the game. We rearrange the pieces on the board... the pieces are endowed with certain properties and we, agreeing to this general rule, derive pleasure from the situation.
Suddenly we notice an ant crawling around the table. Then we notice that there is more than one ant, but there are about two dozen of them. And then !:) We take chess pieces and start hitting ants with them (so they don't crawl, you creeps). And in the process we have a desire "to endow each chess piece with an additional mechanism consisting of a spring with an iron ball at the end. You draw off the spring and hit the ant with the ball - bang! - And the ant dies. Beautiful:)
This desire to attach a spring to a chess horse to fight bugs is a clear example of violation of the normal order of things. The chess piece is an elementary detail that doesn't need to be perfected. It is harmonious.
Another similar example. We work in Photoshop. There are different brushes, paints... - tools. But we are working on a computer with an email client that gets spam every once in a while and bleeps every time. We are disgusted by this bleeping. We want it to stop somehow. And a crazy idea occurs to endow the Photoshop brush with a new wonderful feature - a quick run to the mailer, to sort out where there is spam and where there is useful mail, kill spam and go back to Photoshop to continue coloring... :)
---
Stop_0 is a complete tool with limited properties. You should not build them up.
Another thing is that we still do not have enough of what we have at the moment. The bugs have to be spanked and spam has to be dealt with somehow. The next movement on the way of perfection and development of the programme must be the quite obvious step - the creation of complex objects, which have a qualitatively new feature - the possibility of analysis of the whole situation on the battlefield. The object of interest for such an object is no longer the balance of an order, but the balance of the whole game.
The created tools are built on a simple basis - they have only primitive reflexes (while the cat is sitting, the dog is sluggish). A qualitatively more complex object must already have an instinct. Namely, the object "to break even" should a) know the properties of needed objects, b) be able if not to predict, then at least understand the current moment, c) have powers to control subordinate objects. The current implementation of the program has no such objects (14 and 24 don't count - they don't think, they only shoot, although deftly).
In general, the program is supposed to have 3 levels of authority - reflexive, instinctive and intellectual. The current program implements only two of them - reflexive and intellectual. A new platform is needed to create a programme with full functionality. For now, we have to wait. But as soon as possible :)
----
Example with breakeven on 2 bars.
Suppose initially both of them are without stops and profits. One at 1.5000, the other at 1.6000. Request: using AutoGraf tools set StopLoss orders to breakeven if the market price exceeds breakeven by 7 points.
Solution.
We set the SL of both orders at 1.4000. On each SL, we put instruction 1 Pull Up with parameters Ds=157, St=150. :)
Changes have been made:
1. Fixed an error in the display of news lines.
2. Added setting parameter - program pause. Changing the value allows to regulate CPU load.