Yesterday, at 1am this very idea came up and I wrote an EA on it. The only difference: when the stop loss of one order is reached, I open another order in the same direction as the remaining order. After that a TakeProfit is reached (which is at a distance of several points from the stop of the opposite order) and both orders are closed. The result is slightly better -)
Well, your strategy is much more complicated. In the test there are no stops or takeoffs, in the decision-making terms there is not a single parameter, only one order at a time and I wrote it (for the first time) on the second or third day of my acquaintance with MQL, I didn't know any more complicated. But it's not about specific ideas and their implementation, but the fact that they do exist, in spite of the pessimists.
I don't think Figar0 described his system, or did I miss something?
It's so primitive that you can just pick it up by looking at the balance curve and the TF). I don't want to voice it, not by virtue of being "stiff", but it's just more useful to get to these things yourself.
Figar0 >> : It's so primitive that you can just pick it up by looking at the balance curve and TF). I don't want to sound it out, not by virtue of "stiffing", but it's just more useful to get to such things yourself.
Yesterday, at 1am this very idea came up and I wrote an EA on it. The only difference: when the stop loss of one order is reached, I open another order in the same direction as the remaining order. After that a TakeProfit is reached (which is at a distance of several points from the stop of the opposite order) and both orders are closed. The result is slightly better -)
Well, your strategy is much more complicated. In the test there are no stops or takeoffs, in the decision-making terms there is not a single parameter, only one order at a time and I wrote it (for the first time) on the second or third day of my acquaintance with MQL, I didn't know any more complicated. But it's not about specific ideas and their implementation, but the fact that they do exist, in spite of the pessimists.
Fduch писал(а) >>
Figar0 wrote >>.
Yesterday, at 1am this very idea came up, wrote an expert on it. The only difference: at .
I don't think Figar0 described his system, or did I miss something?
I don't think Figar0 described his system, or did I miss something?
I don't think Figar0 described his system, or did I miss something?
"It's just a bare, totally symmetrical input-output without a single parameter" (c) Figar0
"It's just a bare, totally symmetrical input-output without a single parameter" (c) Figar0
Got it, I guess.
Toys from Vinin
It's so primitive that you can just pick it up by looking at the balance curve and TF). I don't want to sound it out, not by virtue of "stiffing", but it's just more useful to get to such things yourself.
;)
polished it up:
I told you it couldn't get any easier)
>> I told you it couldn't get any easier.)
That's the hard truth. How am I supposed to live with that now? :)
Yes, here's the last option (everything stays symmetrical and without sl and tp):
That's the hard truth... How are we supposed to live with that now?! :)
Yeah, here's the last option (everything stays symmetrical and without sl and tp):
How are the trades closed without ss and so on?