only a manual strategy is profitable over the long term
if you do it right
Robots don't think, but they don't fear, but they lose...
On scalping at *.5 ppm price you can make + and, as they say, - from the office for 4-5 hours a day. If you use Japanese candlesticks, using the signs of the upper and lower reversals + Volumes + Continuous experience and constant analysis.
In the long term, ALL systems drain. And the only way to be profitable all the time is to switch between systems.
If switching between systems is done according to some preset algorithm, then you only get one more system, albeit more complex, which can also work with variable success.
Or are we talking about some kind of manual (intuitive, creative) approach to switching between systems?
It doesn't cost anything to create the handl numbers in the init beforehand, until you refer to them
I don't get it. Handles are software implementations of some kind of objects.
I'm talking about trading principles and techniques. In my belief - none of the sets of techniques can work long in the plus. All of them only work in the negative for a long time.
My deposit has shown some growth only when I started replacing the systems I was using on a regular basis. And I'm afraid it may not last long. Now I'm up to $400. My fear is that by the end of spring I'll be down $300 again. But hopefully I won't reach the bottom ($220).
If switching between systems is done according to some preset algorithm, then you just get another system, albeit a more complex one, which can also work with varying success.
Or are we talking about some kind of manual (intuitive, creative) approach to switching between systems?
It would be cool to find this very "preset switching algorithm". Alas, I've been looking for it for the third year now, and I can't find it. As a result, I have to use this very "intuitive, creative approach", which personally fails me regularly. And because of this I constantly "stagnate". It's not like I'm losing money, but I'm not profitable either. "I'm hovering around zero".
It would be cool to find this very "preset switching algorithm". Alas, I've been looking for it for the third year now, and I can't find it. As a result, I have to use this very "intuitive, creative approach", which personally fails me regularly. And because of this I constantly "stagnate". It's not like I'm losing money, but I'm not profitable either. "Hovering around zero."
George Handle is a pointer to the indicator, is it cached yet
//+------------------------------------------------------------------+//| Buffer_spy.mq5 |//| Fast235 |//| fax@yandex.ru |//+------------------------------------------------------------------+#property copyright"Fast235"#property link"@yandex.ru"#property version"1.00"#property description""//---#define RESET 0#property indicator_chart_window//Выводить индикатор в окно графика#property indicator_plots0//--- input parametersinputint Count_bar = 1; // сколько копироватьinputint Start_bar = 0; // стартовый бар//input uint DigitsToShow= 10; //Digits to Show//---double buffer[];
int handle;
//+------------------------------------------------------------------+//| Custom indicator initialization function |//+------------------------------------------------------------------+intOnInit()
{
ArrayResize(buffer,Count_bar);
//---return(INIT_SUCCEEDED);
}
//+------------------------------------------------------------------+//| Custom indicator iteration function |//+------------------------------------------------------------------+intOnCalculate(constint rates_total,
constint prev_calculated,
constint begin,
constdouble &price[])
{
//--- проверка на новый барif(prev_calculated==rates_total)
return(rates_total);
//+------------------------------------------------------------------+//| основной цикл |//+------------------------------------------------------------------+//--- получим кол-во индикаторов на графикеlong n_indicators = ChartIndicatorsTotal(0,0);
string result_output = "";
//---for(int i=0; i<n_indicators && !_StopFlag; i++)
{
string name = ChartIndicatorName(0,0,i); //--- присвоим имя найденного индикатора
handle = ChartIndicatorGet(0,0,name); //--- создадим хендл на указанный индикаторint buffer_num = 0;
//--- найдем все буфера в созданном хендлеwhile(CopyBuffer(handle,buffer_num,Start_bar,Count_bar,buffer) == Count_bar && !_StopFlag)
{
//--- в цикле проверяем номера буфераfor(int ii=0; ii<Count_bar; ++ii)
result_output +="\n"+name
+"["+IntegerToString(buffer_num)+"]"
+"["+IntegerToString(ii)+"]"
+"="+DoubleToString(buffer[ii],_Digits);
++buffer_num;
}
result_output += "\n";
//--- удалим этот хендл,IndicatorRelease(handle);
}
//comment the resultif(result_output != "")
Comment("BufferInspector "+":\n"+result_output);
elseComment("BufferInspector "+":\n\nNo Buffers have been found.");
//--- return value of prev_calculated for next callreturn(rates_total);
}
//+------------------------------------------------------------------+//| |//+------------------------------------------------------------------+voidOnDeinit(constint reason)
{
Comment("");
}
//+------------------------------------------------------------------+
Strangely enough, after writing this thread, my EA in the tester (right after changing "<" sign to opposite) showed 44% profit in last 12 years run with less than 10% drawdown. This is a grid martin that puts pending orders with complex step (about 50 pips). However it differs from usual martin (apart from the step) in that it opens orders in the opposite direction to the previous order. well. At least something.... My first robot with profit and no loss. I think it's not bad for owl with 50 pips increment. Although I've seen similar messages on the forum more than a hundred times....
George Handle is a pointer to the indicator, is it cached yet
Not necessarily. Handle is just an identifier of some object. Not only of an indicator.
It doesn't change the essence of my words. There is a set of some techniques from which various systems can be composed. I assert that none of them will always be profitable. All of them will have periods of profit and loss, and the periods of profit will bring in total less profit than will be lost in periods of loss.
only a manual strategy is profitable over the long term
if you do it right
Robots don't think, but they don't fear, but they lose...
On scalping at *.5 ppm price you can make + and, as they say, - from the office for 4-5 hours a day. If you use Japanese candlesticks, using the signs of the upper and lower reversals + Volumes + Continuous experience and constant analysis.
If it earns more in periods of profit than it drains in periods of loss, then in principle it is OK.
NO.
In the long term, ALL systems fail. And the only way to be in profit all the time is to switch between systems.
NO.
In the long term, ALL systems drain. And the only way to be profitable all the time is to switch between systems.
Georges, is it more correct to say handles?
It doesn't cost anything to create the handl numbers in the init in advance, until you refer to them,
i use the time of one of the good participants, when you look at where and how much is taken, is that even possible?)
NO.
In the long term, ALL systems drain. And the only way to be profitable all the time is to switch between systems.
If switching between systems is done according to some preset algorithm, then you only get one more system, albeit more complex, which can also work with variable success.
Or are we talking about some kind of manual (intuitive, creative) approach to switching between systems?
Georges, is it more correct to say handles?
It doesn't cost anything to create the handl numbers in the init beforehand, until you refer to them
I don't get it. Handles are software implementations of some kind of objects.
I'm talking about trading principles and techniques. In my belief - none of the sets of techniques can work long in the plus. All of them only work in the negative for a long time.
My deposit has shown some growth only when I started replacing the systems I was using on a regular basis. And I'm afraid it may not last long. Now I'm up to $400. My fear is that by the end of spring I'll be down $300 again. But hopefully I won't reach the bottom ($220).
If switching between systems is done according to some preset algorithm, then you just get another system, albeit a more complex one, which can also work with varying success.
Or are we talking about some kind of manual (intuitive, creative) approach to switching between systems?
It would be cool to find this very "preset switching algorithm". Alas, I've been looking for it for the third year now, and I can't find it. As a result, I have to use this very "intuitive, creative approach", which personally fails me regularly. And because of this I constantly "stagnate". It's not like I'm losing money, but I'm not profitable either. "I'm hovering around zero".
It would be cool to find this very "preset switching algorithm". Alas, I've been looking for it for the third year now, and I can't find it. As a result, I have to use this very "intuitive, creative approach", which personally fails me regularly. And because of this I constantly "stagnate". It's not like I'm losing money, but I'm not profitable either. "Hovering around zero."
George Handle is a pointer to the indicator, is it cached yet
it's a spindle buffer indicator, based on a script known
here, you can remove the indictor at the end of the buffer and see what happens
George Handle is a pointer to the indicator, is it cached yet
Not necessarily. Handle is just an identifier of some object. Not only of an indicator.
It doesn't change the essence of my words. There is a set of some techniques from which various systems can be composed. I assert that none of them will always be profitable. All of them will have periods of profit and loss, and the periods of profit will bring in total less profit than will be lost in periods of loss.