100% Win Math Grid Ea
EA set up the 3 buy stop orders and the 3 sell stop orders away in equal increments from a middle starting point. Then when price triggers the level,
the EA place pending orders on the rest of the levels but the one is at.
If it is at a buy level, the EA place pending orders only above that buy level is at with the initial lot size and in the 3 sell levels with double lot size. If the price is at a sell level, the EA place pending orders only below the sell level is at with the initial lot size and in the 3 buy levels with any double lot size.
No matter where the market moves, when one of the top or the bottom targeted prices is hit, profit will be made. in fact the longer it takes to reach such point, the more money it will make!
I tested this many times, and it really wins every time as long you have
enough money on account. This method can make you a 100% a week.
The main thing is to input INCREMENT for used pair.
The best pair is EURUSD cos it is volatile.
Play with different increments to see how much many can it make in 1 month!
Testing of this ea is slow, that is why i say 1 month.....I you look at
visual test you will easy understand how this method works.
Im posting this here becouse I want some positive input on this method,
to figure out how to cut big margin requirement!
Fell free to recode a EA, just post your improvements here.
I use this ea becouse it has a great risk to reward ratio.
It is like martingale on steroids!
I recoded this ea, so I can not call myself a creator of this!
Last month of trading on 1000usd acc, using increment of 100pips, and 0.1 lot
thanks for ur post...I also interesting in grid system see this demo
Read only password: neural22
My friend show me his system.
this system using grid on CHFJPY, this make level of pending sell limit orders and buy limit orders and continue level with buy stop and sell stop level, maybe this range is using pivot system.
he told me he can make 100% ROI each month with this sytem.
I just wanna inform u, perhaps u interested to study it. Maybe u can make it better.
Thanks for ur ea. I'll try on demo acc firstly.
Seriously, though, you need to prove your method first by using a consistent position size (e.g. 1 mini-lot on every trade), and over at least 1,000 trades. Otherwise you'll never know whether or not you have long-term positive expectancy. More info in post #37 here.
By using phrases like "always wins" and "100% per week" you'll attract a lot of attention to your thread (whether intentionally or not), but I'm afraid that most of it will be negative.
Anyone who test this will know what am I talkin about.
And as for possible negative inputs, I DONT CARE.
Anyway thanks for the tips.
Thank you very much for this EA , it is a good job.
From the first backtest results it seems good, and I think that preferable to take into account the both Increments and Levels parameters.
FF, very interesting EA. Sorry, I jumped to conclusions in my previous post. Basically my approach is to try to find flaws in a method, and if I can’t find anything that seems insurmountable, I’ll assume that it has potential. I ran MT4’s System Tester to try to get a handle on what the EA does.
As best as I can tell, this what this EA does. Let’s call the value of the increment parameter I, and the current price P. With the default parameters, it sets up 3 buystop orders at P+I, P+2I, P+3I, and 3 sellstop orders at P–I, P–2I, P–3I. Each buystop has a SL at P–4I, and a TP at P+4I; each sellstop has a SL at P+4I and a TP at P–4I.
Translating that into understandable figures, given that INCREMENT = 35, it means that the buystop orders are set at +35, +70, +105 pips from the current price, all with TPs at +140 (from the current price, NOT the entry), and SL at –140. Vice versa for sellstops. So the average return per trade = +70 and the average risk = –210, i.e. a 1:3 RR.
Since the orders are buystop/sellstop, we are averaging UP (pyramiding) into trades, as opposed to averaging down. All initial orders are sized at 1 unit.
Now here’s where the fun starts. When the first buystop order is triggered, 3 more sellstop orders are created, with the same entry points as the initial sellstops, and all with the same TP and SL. Here’s the twist: the new sellstops at –35, –70 and –105 (away from the original price) are sized at 1, 2 and 3 units, respectively. Conversely, if a sellstop gets triggered, 3 new buystop orders are created. An additional 3 orders get added every time an order gets triggered. This ‘expansion’ process continues until the account exceeds its available margin, or until the orders hit their TPs or SLs.
As soon as a TP or SL point is reached, obviously all open orders are closed automatically (because they all share the same TP/SL points), and all pending orders are also immediately deleted. At that same point, the cycle repeats itself, i.e. 3 new buystop, and 3 new sellstop orders, based on the current price, are created. Rinse and repeat.
This is quite a complex process, hence it’s difficult to envisage any flaws, i.e. possible losing scenarios. Gaming theory tells me that where a method depends solely on MM for its “edge”, then such an edge is illusory, and the method is eventually doomed to fail (because costs make trading a negative expectancy game by default). But I will keep an open mind here, and will continue to investigate, as my time allows.
-- Reduce the number of levels from 3 to 2. The concept will still work.
-- Lower the increment values, bringing the levels closer together. This also means that the TP/SL area will get hit sooner, reducing the risk of too many orders being added, eating up margin. Of course the drawback is that it means that spread costs will be higher (percent-wise, relative to the move).
-- Target sessions where long, consistent trends are more likely (assuming it's possible to determine this).
-- See if you can make the system more efficient. The number of units in open orders in one direction needs to exceed the number of units in open orders in the other, by only one unit, for the concept to work.
-- This depends on how your broker handles margin. If your broker calculates available margin according to the current net position (difference between buys and sells), then the following will make no difference. But if available margin is calculated on the total positions open, then it will be much more efficient to close buy orders instead of opening additional sell orders, and vice versa.
As long as there is sufficient margin to allow the TP/SL targets to be reached, with a net positive unit count, the method is guaranteed to work (at least I can't see any reason why not). There is risk, however, if the margin gets used up, inadvertently causing a net negative unit count. There may be other risks that I haven't thought of.
A very interesting alternative to the Martingale. Thanks for sharing.
Hanover thanks for investing your time in this!
You got the method right.
I dont think that it is ok to use less than 3 levels, and to use smaller
increment.....I tested this so many times......using smaller increment
means that the price will whipsaw much more betwen levels, eating up
margin! Try to test this on 1 week using increment of let say 15, and
then try 80 to see why!
Then try to use let say 2 levels, and then 12 levels.
I begging everybody not to use this on real acc, before you understund
how this works....whats the ups and downs of this method!!!!
I love this becouse of high reward ratio.....
Maybe it will be a good thing to implement a daily range calculator into
ea, and then the EA will automaticly change its increment to a daily range,
or maybe to add a ATR indic, or............
This EA needs a LOT OF TESTING!!!
AGAIN, I DONT INCOURAGE PEOPLE TO USE THIS, IF YOU USE IT ANYWAY, THEN IT IS ON YOUR FAULT!!!
Ok I will paste here some tests to help people understund
how this ea can variate using different levels and increment.
Testing period is from 2008.09.01. to 2008.09.07. (one week)
Account is 5000usd, using 0.03 lots
TEST 1.) increment 15, levels 2
drawdown 52%, 736 trades, 175 usd profit........not good
Hi Forex Flash,
Thanks for sharing this EA.
I was looking for something like that since 3 years.
Here are my suggestions. I would appreciate if you could do the test and share the results please:
- Account: 5000 US
- Lots: .01 (micro) and .1 (mini)
- 1 level TP
- 20 pips TP
- Double the opposite position (Buy Stop) or just add 1 lot it works fine too
- When TP is reached it closes all positions
- When TP is reached it repositions a buy and sell stop 10 pips away
This way you are always in the market. (almost)
Your margin is way less affected.
The TP is short range and gets hit fast
Why dont you test it yourself bigmike?
Dont be lazy!
Sorry but i dont have time for this.....and from my expirience using
1 level and such a small increment will eat you margin the fastest way!
hi, thanks a lot for sharing method and ea. Will be forward testig with different setups and ll post here.
Have you thought about setting hours to trade, to avoid opening too much orders when the market is slow (e. g NY afternoon) ?
© Forex Factory