Who are the Greeters - page 8
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
Try again - I have everything downloaded and unzipped - I checked.
On the question of who the Gridders are :-))
Here's an idea I saw once a long time ago. Let's say euros, let's say the price is 3000. Let's wait. Doesn't give a shit about the trend. If the price reaches 3050, buy, sl at 3000, no TP. If price reaches 3100, we move sl to 3000 (Breakeven), etc. until it closes at Breakeven. Is it in essence a Gridder? Do I get it right? It is entirely based on stops, not on limits...
But it is not clear in this example, what should I do if a Stop Loss is opened, let it be 3000, the loss=50pp, should I try to untwist it? We can see that sometimes we can get considerable profit, but it is also clear that these flips will cause more losses than gains during trend reversals. We should not roll if the trend has not changed? (for example if the price hasn't crossed МА(200) or something like that). I do not even know. The idea seems like a good one, I just don't know which way to look at it. The loss = 50pp I gave as an example, the matter will not change if I do it at 100, 200 or 10pp. And why do I think it's not a bad idea - because no one knows what will be the trend tomorrow or in an hour, or even in that very second when we open a position and since the price went from price X to price X + Y, so we kind of think it is the newest trend ... imho... What do you think about such a "gridder"?
On the question of who the Gridders are :-))
Here's an idea I saw once a long time ago. Let's say euros, let's say the price is 3000. Let's wait. Doesn't give a shit about the trend. If the price reaches 3050, buy, sl at 3000, no TP. If price reaches 3100, we move sl to 3000 (Breakeven), etc. until it closes at Breakeven. Is it by its nature a Gridder? Do I get it right? It is entirely based on stops, not on limits...
But it is not clear what to do if a Stop Loss is closed. Suppose it worked at 3000 and loss=50pp, should I try to reverse? We can see that sometimes we can get considerable profit, but it is also clear that these flips will cause more losses than gains during trend reversals. We should not roll if the trend has not changed? (for example if the price hasn't crossed МА(200) or something like that). I do not even know. The idea seems like a good one, I just don't know which side to approach it from. The loss = 50pp I gave as an example, the matter will not change if I do it at 100, 200 or 10pp. And why it seems to me that the idea is good - because no one knows what will be the trend tomorrow or in an hour, or even in that very second when we open a position and since the price went from price X to price X + Y, so we kind of think that this is the newest trend ... imho... What do you think about such a "gridder"?
No. You get it wrong - it's definitely not a Gridder. :-)))
P.S. The author's spelling is preserved.
Hi all! Just happened to look in here. I'm ordering something similar to this now.
Is it possible to cheat the odds? It looks like it can do that sometimes! This EA can hardly be called a gridiron.
The algorithm is as follows:
On each bar, the Expert Advisor sets stop (or limit, - not the point) orders at a given distance from Lions and Hives of the 1st bar. When a given total profit is reached, all positions are closed.
Losses (if there are more than 2) are immediately closed in pairs.
All orders that didn't work are deleted after the specified number of bars (5-10). Thus, we obtain that there are no more than 5 to 10 orders and no more than 2 to 6 positions simultaneously. That means there will be no claims from the brokerage company's server if we work in such a manner.
And now, during the first testing of the Eurodollar Expert Advisor, I have set the parameters "by eye" and have run it from December 1 till this day, i.e. in more than a month. Without any optimization - running it through all ticks gave amazing results:
It is clear that stop orders (the above test) will give more profit in a trend market. And limit orders - in a flat market! I think this algorithm has a promising potential for further experiments!
----------------
I almost forgot. The trawl works in a test run.
No. You get it wrong - it's definitely not a gridder. :-)))
P.S. The author's spelling is retained.
Ah yes, a gridder, not a gridder. Although, it is strange, if it comes from the word grid, it should be gridder with two d's, but if it comes with one d, it obviously does not come from the word grid, and in theory it should read as grider. :-))) but what about terminology :-)) and the English language... :-))
And if we refill on every X ppt move up, does it become a gridiron? I.e. 3050 - first buy, 3100 - refill and total sl to 3050, 3150 - another refill and total sl to 3100... But that seems more dangerous than just opening once.
And I misspelled there in the previous post, sorry - in the example there breakeven is not at 3000, but at 3050, then at 3100 etc.
2 leonid553:
I tried to do this manually in hourly timeframe - buy when a candle broke through its high unless it was in flat and sell when it broke through its low and, respectively, without taking into account open orders (i.e. with inordinate amount of volume and lot), with deleting opposite orders only after the breakout. But once I ran into a flat during the daytime several days in a row and my profit was gone, as well as most of my depo (thanks to micro-depo). Probability of occurrence of a flat should be defined somehow (suddenly it appears from somewhere), of course I should not trade at night or on holidays, but it is not enough, I should define it somehow, I do not know how. Well, maybe there should be a condition - to start placing orders only if the wave is not less than 50-60 points in height, for example, for the hour market... On the other hand, whatever the wave is, it may still fade and start to swing at +/- 25-30 pps, taking away more and more new orders to open and more and more stop-losses...
And if you refill on every move of Xp upwards, does it become a grider? I.e. 3050 - first buy, 3100 - refill and total sl at 3050, 3150 - another refill and total sl at 3100... But that seems more dangerous than just opening once.
And I misprinted in the previous post there, sorry - in the example there the breakeven is not at 3000, but at 3050, then 3100 etc.
No - it's not a gridiron. It is an ordinary share of a profitable position (it is called differently, according to the pyramid principle). Yes, on the one hand the risks are higher, but the profit is greater.
I am working in this direction myself. They recommend to buy only profitable positions (preferably on a pullback) and each successive order is smaller than the preceding one and the more so, according to a multiplier less than 1 (see the attached file) because a reversal, but not a pullback, is possible. Maybe you can just buy in addition increasing the position when it reaches a certain number of pips of profit, while trawling with transferring the position to Breakeven (as you write).
For griders - search the forum, articles and here - https://www.mql5.com/ru/code
For example a typical gridiron - look and read the comments here - https://www.mql5.com/ru/code.
Roman, thanks for the links.
As for shares, I don't like them at all, as they say, I'm both eager and prone to them. It is clear why I want to - because the profit with the right trend may be simply gigantic. But I do not want to: take the simplest scheme, let's scale in every 100 points (of course we usually do not do it that way, it is better to do it on pullbacks, and they are always at different distances, but it is just for example, and for simplicity we scale in the same volume, as for the first opening).
Variant 1 - trawl every 100 points without topping, variant 2 - trawl with topping every 100 points
Buy 3000, price decreased by 2900. SL in both cases -100.
Buy 3000, price went up to 3100 and returned to 3000. In the 1st variant the result = 0 points (no fill), in the 2nd variant - 0 points by the opening + by the fill -100 in total -100.
Buy 3000, reached 3200, returned to 3100. The result is +100 (Breakeven at 3100), #2 - on the opening +100, on the 1st fill - 0, on the second -100, total 0.
Buy 3000, reached 3300, back to 3200. Did the trade result +200 (buy at 3200), #2 showed +200 on the opening, +100 on the 1st fill, 0 on the 2nd one, -100 on the 3rd one, total +200.
Buy 3000, reached 3400, back to 3300. Number 1 result +300 (buy at 3300), number 2 on the opening +300, on the 1st fill +200, on the 2nd +100, on the 3rd 0, on the 4th -100, the total of +500.
Somehow I do not like it, but look, during first two steps variant without fillings is more profitable, and second variant only manages to equal it on the third step. It only becomes more profitable on the fourth! That's what I don't like. However, if we scale in with a smaller volume each time, of course it is less dangerous, but on the 4th or 5th-6th wave it will not give such a huge profit that can be obtained with one lot. In any case everything depends on guessing the trend.
Roman, thanks for the links.
............
I want to say - it's not all so straightforward here (your option calculation)... You have to top up in any case... There are different schemes... It is necessary to work in this direction ... If the multiplier is 0.8 - there too, as you write ("4-5-6th wave will not be such a giant profit") - I think it will be... :-))) although a bit smaller... :-))
P.S. Guess what will be the trend is not necessary - just fill in its direction, if it persists and all ... TR should be removed at all... If you don't want to trade every order (as you have written in your version, you will have to close the entire pack with a trawl at once ... :-)) When testing an EA we are working on (start - 0,1 lot, the number of rolls is unlimited, each roll along the trend - 0,1 lot, the trend is defined by the daily, we enter on a pullback on H4 or H1), beautiful pictures are "sometimes" shown - when a pack of orders is simultaneously closed on profit not on Take profit, but on the total Trailing Stop, or when a signal about trend reversal is received - we close the whole pack on profit... :-)))
P.P.S . Of course, that happens when we buy with subsequent sinking by pullbacks and it turns out not to be a pullback, but "have already gone the other way", then
in this case the last buy in occurs precisely at the maximum (or about that) of the movement - it goes in the red, however it does not spoil the whole picture... :-))
Why did you put a bunch of letters in your posts?
Do you think that would make it easier to get people to come to you?