Exactly. Go to the link https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/9878 and look at the screenshot - just these conditions on this instrument provided a remarkable drain. Well, try playing with the clock again...
It is better when the channel is not constant, i.e. orders of the same type should not be on the same level.
Better when the channel is non-permanent, i.e. orders of the same type should not be on the same level.
I did it with avalanche extra (at this link there are 2 tester reports for 2009 and 2010). i managed to avoid a loss, but on the verge of a chasm several times - you can see everything there. its code is not there, but the point was exactly in the change of levels. The system turned out to be more stable. But I still don't like this design.
Exactly. Follow the link https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/9878 and look at the screenshot - these very conditions on this instrument provided a remarkable drain in just 3 days. Well, try playing with the clock some more...
You are becoming easily predictable ...:) Went to your link, there is nothing interesting there. And it is the vicious avalanche algorithm that drains, not the idea.
You are becoming easily predictable... :) went to your link, there is nothing interesting there. and it is the vicious avalanche algorithm, not the idea, that is leaking.
The optimists even in the graveyard have one good thing - go for it!
Allow the use of cookies to log in to the MQL5.com website.
Please enable the necessary setting in your browser, otherwise you will not be able to log in.
You are signed in. Two-factor authentication has been disabled. Set it up again and scan a new QR code, or continue with two-factor authentication disabled.
Exactly. Go to the link https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/9878 and look at the screenshot - just these conditions on this instrument provided a remarkable drain. Well, try playing with the clock again...
It is better when the channel is not constant, i.e. orders of the same type should not be on the same level.
Better when the channel is non-permanent, i.e. orders of the same type should not be on the same level.
I did it with avalanche extra (at this link there are 2 tester reports for 2009 and 2010). i managed to avoid a loss, but on the verge of a chasm several times - you can see everything there. its code is not there, but the point was exactly in the change of levels. The system turned out to be more stable. But I still don't like this design.
Here's Avalanche's 2010 tester's report. What's not to like. It's quite possible to give it a try.
INFINITEITH : Don't listen to anyone, they also all test Avalanche and write their variations.
There are many supporters of this method and you are not alone. Test your method as you see fit.
I agree
Exactly. Follow the link https://www.mql5.com/ru/code/9878 and look at the screenshot - these very conditions on this instrument provided a remarkable drain in just 3 days. Well, try playing with the clock some more...
You are becoming easily predictable ...:) Went to your link, there is nothing interesting there. And it is the vicious avalanche algorithm that drains, not the idea.
It is better when the channel is non-permanent, i.e. orders of the same type should not be at the same level.
I think on the contrary, a constant one is better.
An EA based only on MACD will give profits and peace of mind on the daily chart many times over
We only dream of peace :)
You are becoming easily predictable... :) went to your link, there is nothing interesting there. and it is the vicious avalanche algorithm, not the idea, that is leaking.
The optimists even in the graveyard have one good thing - go for it!