Avalanche - page 197
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
The unpleasant stretches for the Avalanche are flat-out. There is a way out - as always, a very simple one. I am now developing a mathematical model to modify the "Avalanche" algorithm which is not afraid of flat weather - it can earn both on flat and trend conditions. The general principle - alternation of direct and reversed orders (Buy Stop - Sell Limit and Sell Stop - Buy Limit) with different volumes.
As I understand your system does not imply any stop orders? It means that profit on one of the orders will increase but the loss on the other order will also decrease?
Как я понял, Ваша система не предполагает стоп-ордеров? То есть прибыль по одному из ордеров будет расти, но и меньший убыток по второму тоже?
The author categorically does not understand that the loss will grow on the second order. He thinks that the loss will grow twice slower on MT4 than on netting without locks.As I understand it, your system does not involve stop orders? So the profit on one of the orders will go up, but so will the smaller loss on the second order?
This is a kind of non-semetric lock but as I've read in one place on this forum"The matter is that I have a similar system, but I managed to increase its productivity much more after adding a condition: when reaching a certain loss the losing pair RETURNS and the EA trades further until the target profit is reached. As a result there are less losing trades, profits are reaching much faster. And this is based on the market axiom - the price will sooner continue its movement than turn around".
The author categorically does not understand that the loss will grow on the second order. The author thinks that the loss will grow twice slower on MT4 than on netting without locks.How does he/she not understand? Maybe, both orders should be closed when the profitable one reaches its target. The bottom line is - Profit = Profit (1) - Loss (2) ... This is not a very good model, imho. Maybe, it would make sense to enter a coefficient allowing us to close the 2nd order "-". Although...
I've read it in one place on this forum."The matter is that I have a similar system, but I managed to increase its productivity much more after adding a condition: when reaching a certain loss the losing pair RETURNS and the EA trades further until the target profit is reached. As a result there are less losing trades, profits are reaching much faster. And this is based on the market axiom - the price will sooner continue its movement than turn around".
Of course it will.... BUT by how much... It's quite possible that it will only go as far as your reversal, and then back. In my opinion, a flip, as well as a lock, is not an option.Can you give me a scheme of how you envisage such a reversal? And from what will your coefficient "dance"?
Will certainly continue.... BUT by how much... It is quite possible that it will only go as far as your flip and then back again. I don't think a flip is an option, nor is a lock.Can you give me a scheme of how you envisage such a reversal? And from what will your coefficient "dance"?
Not for me to ask such questions - I will not take sides in this thread!Avalanche has something I like - but I don't see it as a basic trading tool.
All the keffes, etc. - I don't think we need to go through 200 pages of Search in this thread for the newcomers.
200 pages at 30 seconds per page 1.6 hours ahead --->
back to you <-----
Нет идиот ты именно скажи как в реале ты будешь ордера выставлять и какая будет сумма лотов по этим ордерам. Та схема что ты привёл полный бред человека который не знает элёментарной математики. По той схеме что ты привёл в МТ4 ордера и близко так выставляца не будут. Посчитай и подумай почему баран. А сейчас жду схему выставления ордеров на реале пошагово В МТ4.
Сразу моментально видно что ты в реале никогда вообще не торговал и ордера по Оползню никогда не выставлял. Ты даже не знаешь как они будут в реале выставляца и какой суммы нада будет ставить ордера, и какая сума лотов будет по всем ордерам и какая маржа будет.
Read the first post of this thread. Now to you - your words:
No idiot you tell me exactly how in real life you will place orders and what will be the amount of lots on those orders. The chart you cited is the nonsense of a man who does not know elementary mathematics. In that scheme that you have given in MT4 the orders will not be close to that. Calculate and think why sheep. Now I'm waiting for the step by step order placement scheme on the real Market in MT4.
You may see that you have never traded on the real market and have never placed orders on landslide. You don't even know how they will be placed and how much money will be needed to put orders and what the total amount of lots will be for all orders and what the margin will be.
И ещё подумай баран. То есть ты хочеш сказать что на МТ4 после всех переворотов текущий убыток будет 37200, а на МТ5 он будет 73360??То есть по твоим расчётам в МТ5 убыток растёт в два раза быстрее))Ты думаешь разработчики МТ5 разработали платформу на которой ни один трейдер торговать не согласица и они эту платформу никому продать не смогут??Ахахах а разработчики делали несколько лет МТ5 и не подозревая что в ней убыток растёт в два раза быстрей. Всё писец МТ5. Никто теперь на ней торговать не будет! Вот это разработчики провтыкали. Хвала Джону Катале что он нашол такой баг в МТ5. Ну ты и посмешище)) Дибил я ж тебе говорю та схема ордеров что ты привёл не имет ничего общего с реалом)) На реале ордера и сума лотов в ордерах будет совсем другая. А убыток будет одинаковый. Так что все твои расчёты полный бред. Иди учи табличку умножения тупарь))
Хотя ..если подумать то выходит в МТ5 и прибыль пропорционально тоже должна рости в два раза быстрей))
Срочно нада сообщить разработчикам МТ5 что они разработали платформу в которой убыток растёт в два раза быстрей))
The calculations are correct. The current loss in MT5 and on any other monoorder platform is almost twice as big, because the losses of the orders on both sides of the corridor are fixed, while in MT4 only orders of one side, the opposite one, are losing on the border of the corridor.
This is not a bug of MT5 but it was designed that way from the very beginning. The purpose is to make the trading conditions for traders as worse as possible. Make no mistake that the objectives are different. The MT5 developers are well aware of that - there is no need to tell them anything.
The calculations are correct. The current loss in MT5 and on any other monoorder platform is almost twice as long, because the losses of the orders on both sides of the corridor are fixed, while in MT4 only orders of one side, the opposite one, are losing on the border of the corridor.
This is not a bug of MT5 but it was designed that way from the very beginning. The purpose is to make the trading conditions for traders as worse as possible. Make no mistake that the objectives are different. The developers of MT5 are well aware of that - there is no need to tell them anything.
No comment.
Катана, как обычно, пытается шулерничать. Для платформы МТ5 ордер 3.2 не надо считать в убыток, но к убытку надо добавить еще один ордер 0.1.
Я на самом деле думаю, что Катана то, о чём я написал постом выше.
Why would that be? The condition of the problem was that the volumes of the order chain were exactly the same. Because:
E_mc2 wrote :>>
If you want to open lots in MT4 or fix stops in MT5, the result on the deposit is the same.
The fact that you will reach breakeven faster on MT5 after the first reverse with such a scheme of order placement is one of the few advantages of MT5 and I wrote about it. But the objective was to show that with exactly the same order values you will incur losses much faster on the MT5 than on MT4. Which I have done.