SessionReopenEA - MetaTrader 5 için uzman

Gold has a daily maintenance break on the CME. The first hour of trading after it rises more than chance explains, and it does so on every calendar year of an eleven-year sample — while every other hour of the day measures flat.

This Expert Advisor buys at that reopen, holds for a fixed time with a volatility-scaled server-side stop, and does nothing else. One trade per session. No averaging, no grid, no martingale, no recovery.

The number, and then the number after I found my cost model was wrong

Measured over 11 years of hourly data, entering at the reopen and holding two hours:

The left column is what I would have published if I had stopped where most people stop. Then a real-tick backtest in MetaTrader's own Strategy Tester showed the true round-trip cost at the reopen is about 60 points, not the 19 my research had charged — because the M1 bar's spread field is a per-bar summary and understates the reopen spread by roughly three times.

The edge survives that correction, at less than half its original strength, and the win rate becomes a coin flip carried by a favourable payoff rather than by frequency. The right column is the real one, and it is the one this EA is built on.

What it is not

It is not a living, and the header of the source file says so before any parameter is described. On capital sized for a 20% drawdown it measures about +3.3% a year with 4.6% maximum drawdown, Sharpe 1.23, roughly 200 trades a year — which also means roughly one year in nine is negative. At 0.01 lots that is about 130 currency units a year, and that figure measures the position size, not the strategy.

A 2.5-year window of it, taken alone, gives t = +1.12 — not significant. A profitable two-year backtest of this proves nothing by itself; the eleven-year sample is what carries it.

What the result survived before I trusted it

Each of these could have killed it, and the reason they are listed is that a result nobody tried to break is not a result:

• It is not a gap. The recorded gap across the break averages −0.011 — the move happens with the market open.
• It is not a bar-construction artifact. Rebuilding the hour from independently fetched M1 bars agrees with the H1 series to 0.0000 on all 73 overlapping days.
• It is not outliers. The 1%-trimmed mean is +0.70 against a full-sample +0.75; the median is +0.48.
• It is not the spread normalisation that would be the obvious trap, since MT5 bars are bid-side and the reopen spread is wider: the spread stays flat across the whole hour, so it explains 0% of the effect.
• It does not need the exact reopen tick. Entering 15 minutes late still pays, 30 minutes late still pays, and it dies at 45.
• The weekly reopen is NOT part of it. Sunday measures +1.11 bps with t = 0.88 — indistinguishable from noise — against +3.90 bps and t = 8.32 for the daily ones. That is why InpSkipMonday exists and defaults to true.

Inputs, and why they are what they are

On the stop multiplier. At the corrected cost, 1.5× gives +1.60 bps (t 3.42) while 2.0× gives +1.91 (t 4.07) and is hit on 1.3% of trades instead of 2.6%. Wider still keeps improving — and the stop stays, because "remove the stop and the backtest improves" is exactly the reasoning that makes a martingale look profitable. The stop is what bounds a tail event; the time exit bounds the rest.

Test it before believing any of the above

And test it with every tick based on real ticks. On other code of mine, the same rules over the same period produced −15,627 with 1-minute bar modelling and +79,000 with real ticks. A backtest that does not state its modelling mode is not telling you what it measured.