[MT4 EA] o.Hannah KING v1.59 is available for download [$479] | Page 8 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

What does the MT4 kb download mean?! 10 replies

MT4 - Download Problem 4 replies

Different MT4 brokers: MT4 download links 5 replies

Cant download Mt4 files to new platform 6 replies

MT4 Download/Plugins 2 replies

Attachments: [MT4 EA] o.Hannah KING v1.59 is available for download [$479]
Exit Attachments

[MT4 EA] o.Hannah KING v1.59 is available for download [$479]

  • #141
  • Feb 2, 2018 6:36pm Feb 2, 2018 6:36pm
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: oHannahking_169_31.png Size: 111 KB



Best regards

Lo
  • #142
  • Feb 2, 2018 9:51pm Feb 2, 2018 9:51pm
Quoting majamivice
It's time to show my results with KING 172. IC Markets ECN account started 20.12.2017: {image} FBS Cent account started 22.01.2018: {image}
Somethings not right there. Trade count looks way to high.
  • #143
  • Feb 3, 2018 5:03am Feb 3, 2018 5:03am
Quoting majamivice
It's time to show my results with KING 172. IC Markets ECN account started 20.12.2017: {image} FBS Cent account started 22.01.2018: {image}
Hi. I talked with OP and he says that my results are because of I've increased trade size from 0.01 to 0.1 on ECN account. But whole EA is on auto mode and I thought that it will adapt for new trade size. We will see result next week with King 173.
  • #144
  • Feb 3, 2018 5:37am Feb 3, 2018 5:37am
Quoting majamivice
{quote} Hi. I talked with OP and he says that my results are because of I've increased trade size from 0.01 to 0.1 on ECN account. But whole EA is on auto mode and I thought that it will adapt for new trade size. We will see result next week with King 173.
Auto to a point. Once the Lot size is increased beyond recommendation, to expect the EA to deal with it, is fine, but something has to give...in this case, it was the account. Perhaps rein it in somewhat and use it solely on auto. Best of luck for the coming week.
  • #145
  • Edited 9:06am Feb 3, 2018 8:22am | Edited 9:06am
Quoting majamivice
{quote} Hi. I talked with OP and he says that my results are because of I've increased trade size from 0.01 to 0.1 on ECN account. But whole EA is on auto mode and I thought that it will adapt for new trade size. We will see result next week with King 173.
I wholeheartedly appreciate your transparency in discussing this with the forum majamivice.

Unfortunately, after reviewing many detailed statements each week it has become obvious that I will need to remove the risk adjustment settings from o.Hannah KING (HRTA will retain risk adjustment settings). Without direct guidance from me, or at minimum, sending detailed reports of account performance with higher risk settings I have no way to support clients that choose to take on more risk. To protect myself and my clients, any further updates after KING 173 will no longer have the option to adjust risk. Obviously, I want to continue to generate money through sales so that I can continue to program. Without money, I lose my ability to continue working on this project. I am in no risk of running out of funding to continue programming currently, but a long trend of bad reports due to user risk adjustments would mean that I need to not only reduce risk to clients, but also myself.

If you are already a KING member that wants to adjust risk settings, you will need to contact me directly at ([email protected]) so that I can generate you a custom copy of KING with agreed upon risk settings. As many potential customers read through these reports to make a decision on how the development process is going and when they would be most comfortable entering into the o.Hannah family, It is only fair they see results of only what I can provide them, not what a user's adjustments without consulting the creator first, can produce. In the past, low balance accounts at high-leverage, and high effective leverage (http://forextraininggroup.com/understanding-effective-leverage-in-the-forex-market/) caused absolute havoc as it requires hundreds upon hundreds of hours of coding and testing to protect these accounts. I have no desire to return to the early days of o.Hannah when simple account settings were the number one enemy to profitability. The current system in automatic mode, with no other parameters adjusted, represents the low DD and steady balance increase that I want to recognized in the KING version of o.Hannah.

Anticipate a very early update to 173 around Monday or so with risk adjustments removed. In the future I would ask all members to be transparent about their personal adjustments to parameters while also including standard account information such as deposit balance and leverage profile. I have no doubts that there will be issues that arise depending on broker or leverage profiles over time, the system is still in heavy development and I spend 60-70 hours a week reading reports and monitoring o.Hannah to ensure the automatic systems behave correctly on MANY account types. Due to having less than 1% of my users on cent account and the obvious performance issues related to, what I believe to be all cent account brokers, I will no longer be supporting cent accounts. I cannot justify adjusting, dramatically, the performance of the EA to fit such a limited amount of accounts when the primary focus for o.Hannah is on traditional accounts.

I have appreciated everyone's posting of their account results, regardless of performance, and even more so to those who are sending me detailed statements via e-mail when they notice their account isn't performing as anticipated. Usually, problems encountered during trading with o.Hannah are somewhat simple and can be fixed live to align with that specific version's trade plan.

Again, anticipate all risk adjustment settings to be removed from KING versions 174 and forward. If you are a king member and want to adjust your risk to your specific account, please contact me via e-mail at ([email protected]) so that we can go through a rigorous process to ensure you both understand your request, and I can ensure the EA will execute your request properly.


Thank you,
o.Hannah
  • #146
  • Feb 3, 2018 8:37am Feb 3, 2018 8:37am
Quoting oHannah
{quote} I wholeheartedly appreciate your transparency in discussing this
you might be a great coder and a great person.or reverse.no ideea about any as i dont know you.but for sure i'm not one of those who is happy to see your EA fail,on the contrary even if all results are posted including the bad ones i am curios (not happy not sad) to see how improvements steps move forward.why you may ask.well because i will enjoy to see this commercial section full with TRANSPARENT people who stand straight to face and figure solutions for their products when there might be any problem and not just vanish as usual 90% of commercial members do,and who dont ban anyone who may be different in opinions and views.call this simple reasons.and i really apreciate that your clients post also bad results not just the green ones as we are already used to see around.so your thread might be special in his way.for a guy like me who dont belive in full automatic trading as retailer definitely i will watch with interest how this software will evoluate.
cheers
Take what you can, give nothing back
  • #147
  • Feb 3, 2018 8:52am Feb 3, 2018 8:52am
Quoting Husky77
{quote} you might be a great coder and a great person.or reverse.no ideea about any as i dont know you.but for sure i'm not one of those who is happy to see your EA fail,on the contrary even if all results are posted including the bad ones i am curios (not happy not sad) to see how improvements steps move forward.why you may ask.well because i will enjoy to see this commercial section full with TRANSPARENT people who stand straight to face and figure solutions for their products when there might be any problem and not just vanish as usual 90% of...
I have edited the original post as it was not my intention to offend you, please accept my apology. I only wanted to highlight the influx of FF members that have stated they are not interested in automated trading, or my software, but continue to take a large interest in my performance.
  • #148
  • Feb 3, 2018 9:14am Feb 3, 2018 9:14am
Quoting oHannah
{quote} I have edited the original post as it was not my intention to offend you, please accept my apology. I only wanted to highlight the influx of FF members that have stated they are not interested in automated trading, or my software, but continue to take a large interest in my performance.
no need to apologise me.youre right about the ones who might want you fail but thats not regular members i am sure ,but more your commercial mates,cos is the logic of commercial competition if your product succeed and have clients then other who just play tricks in commercial need you to fail.
and dont get me wrong,i am manual trader but my demo's are working with tests for automated complexe or simple schemes ,some fail some work and so on.hope die last.my curiosity is very normal,will you not be curios by trading manual if someone tool succeed and beat the market in auto mode?and my tone is down due to the fact that even if i was acid first i was not banned to post here and to the fact you dont claim you sell any holly grail as usual most of commercial guys do.i have to admit is a new way this you use to sell and then still work on improvements,at first look is an image like you take money for test version.but in fact might be a very good way cos most of tools are sold without any support or any improvements later, without any contact with customers after money was taken.some commercial here i think may learn from this.i only hope you can keep it up as much is possible.will try keep my posts low as is not my intention to pollute this thread without any reason.so i will watch with curiosity.
cheers
Take what you can, give nothing back
  • #149
  • Edited 10:21am Feb 3, 2018 10:05am | Edited 10:21am
UPDATE:

Over the next week I will be optimizing existing systems in the o.Hannah software. As new data comes in from users, anticipate updates being rapidly sent to reflect the new information becoming available. AS ALWAYS test all new versions on a demo account before proceeding to a live account as changes this week will be impacting the order system's entry thresholds and risk tolerances. KING version 174 has been released to all subscribers but does not reflect an optimal state of currently implemented systems that were introduced last week. Much similar to how 1.59 was the release version when this thread started, but it wasn't until 169-172 started showing good results, expect 174 to be the mass introduction of very new systems that will be adjusted as more information becomes available to me.

For my KING members, the most helpful thing you can do while testing is to send me a screenshot of your platform showing ALL o.Hannah modules along with a detailed statement. This allows me to analyze performance very quickly and detect which system is not performing as intended for your account/broker combination. The newer systems should dramatically smooth the balance/equity curves while managing DD far more dynamically. If you are hesitant to move from your current version, please contact me via e-mail ( ([email protected])) before upgrading so that we can discuss if the newest systems have matured enough to warrant an upgrade to +174.

I have been testing o.Hannah on what I believe to be the most commonly used brokers, but each broker presents its own set of challenges. On average, regardless of broker and account type, performance has been increasing. I want to continue this trend by collecting data on the new systems and how they are reacting to various brokers tricks. The current concern is how commission based brokers will impact trading vs spread only accounts. Currently the newest systems have shown fantastic results on spread only brokers, but the newest systems should be able to adapt to commission based brokers as well. As always, keep in contact with me so we can continue developing your account, and o.Hannah.


Thank you,
o.Hannah
  • #150
  • Feb 3, 2018 2:13pm Feb 3, 2018 2:13pm
Quality debate by oHannah and Husky77....nobody can argue with either of them.

M.
  • #151
  • Feb 3, 2018 4:11pm Feb 3, 2018 4:11pm
Quoting moodybot
{quote} Auto to a point. Once the Lot size is increased beyond recommendation, to expect the EA to deal with it, is fine, but something has to give...in this case, it was the account. Perhaps rein it in somewhat and use it solely on auto. Best of luck for the coming week.
I'm not sure about that solution. How about the ea issue a message informing the user that the lot size is too big for the related account balance and disables auto trading. This type of protection is ridiculously simple to program. The way I see it is that a $500 ea sold to public should never endanger any account, demo or live.
  • #152
  • Feb 3, 2018 5:06pm Feb 3, 2018 5:06pm
Quoting kenshin
{quote} I'm not sure about that solution. How about the ea issue a message informing the user that the lot size is too big for the related account balance and disables auto trading. This type of protection is ridiculously simple to program. The way I see it is that a $500 ea sold to public should never endanger any account, demo or live.
Usually I would agree, but an email was sent out by oHannah, I have it somewhere, warning that anything other than auto would give differing results. The EA that was sold for $500 had an auto lot size and was safe, this was demonstrated a few posts ago that show excellent results. I noticed there wasn’t a post from the detractors about those, only the failed cent account. Various members wanted to be able to adjust the lot size. They were warned. There was no warning in the original version as it’s on auto and not required.
  • #153
  • Feb 3, 2018 5:31pm Feb 3, 2018 5:31pm
Quoting moodybot
{quote} Usually I would agree, but an email was sent out by oHannah, I have it somewhere, warning that anything other than auto would give differing results. The EA that was sold for $500 had an auto lot size and was safe, this was demonstrated a few posts ago that show excellent results. I noticed there wasn’t a post from the detractors about those, only the failed cent account. Various members wanted to be able to adjust the lot size. They were warned. There was no warning in the original version as it’s on auto and not required.
Okay, I see. I have never changed the settings on any version if they are available. It's bad enough that there is no ability to backtest, but now we have different results obtained using different settings. I think he should lock down all settings so nothing can be changed in any version. At least that way, we know that everyone is playing the same game. Bad performance screenshots like those above are not a good look.
  • #154
  • Feb 3, 2018 6:44pm Feb 3, 2018 6:44pm
Quoting kenshin
{quote} Okay, I see. I have never changed the settings on any version if they are available. It's bad enough that there is no ability to backtest, but now we have different results obtained using different settings. I think he should lock down all settings so nothing can be changed in any version. At least that way, we know that everyone is playing the same game. Bad performance screenshots like those above are not a good look.
Backtest can’t be done, believe me, I wish it could. OHannah has said future versions will be Auto, that is the best way to go. That way if the results are poor, at least oHannah can eliminate the tinker aspect, and concentrate on the EA and broker.
The screenshot isn’t good, but in this case, served a real purpose in exposing the issue of the ‘tinker’ factor. Now it’s down to EA and or Broker.
  • #155
  • Edited 8:10pm Feb 3, 2018 7:35pm | Edited 8:10pm
Quoting moodybot
{quote} Backtest can’t be done, believe me, I wish it could. OHannah has said future versions will be Auto, that is the best way to go. That way if the results are poor, at least oHannah can eliminate the tinker aspect, and concentrate on the EA and broker. The screenshot isn’t good, but in this case, served a real purpose in exposing the issue of the ‘tinker’ factor. Now it’s down to EA and or Broker.
Multi-currency backtesting can be done with MT5. Adapting the source code of an ea that runs on MT4 to run on MT5 is not a difficult thing to do now that there is hedging account support in MT5.

I recently adapted my own ea. It compiles in MT4 as a 376kb ex4 file and the source is a little over 6000 lines. I started the conversion knowing nothing about MT5 and within 2 weeks I had a version that compiles and works properly on both MT4 and MT5. What I found was that almost all changes required were cosmetic, just different commands to do the same thing. My ea uses a few custom DLL's that I wrote in PureBasic, one for opening extra status windows that are overlayed on top of MT4, and also one that handles sending email. It was just a matter of recompiling them DLL's to x64 so that MT5 could use them.. Some tricky code I had scraped from the MQL forums worked fine in MT4, but didn't work in MT5. Namely copying to the clipboard and measuring cpu usage. I worked around this by implementing the same functions using a few more DLL's in PureBasic. Opening and closing orders works a bit different in MT5, but it is not complicated to work out. All in all it was a fairly simple process.

Considering that oHannah is a single ex4 file that is 51kb in size then I would estimate it's around 1000 lines of source code. I can't see that it would be much work to adapt it to run on MT5, then it would be possible to do multi-currency backtesting.

Just a few ideas that worked for me.
  • #156
  • Edited 10:41pm Feb 3, 2018 10:09pm | Edited 10:41pm
Quoting kenshin
{quote} Multi-currency backtesting can be done with MT5. Adapting the source code of an ea that runs on MT4 to run on MT5 is not a difficult thing to do now that there is hedging account support in MT5. I recently adapted my own ea. It compiles in MT4 as a 376kb ex4 file and the source is a little over 6000 lines. I started the conversion knowing nothing about MT5 and within 2 weeks I had a version that compiles and works properly on both MT4 and MT5. What I found was that almost all changes required were cosmetic, just different commands to do...
Thanks for the info. Contact me via email so we can discuss this more. Will MT5 also detail the amount of time between ticks in the historical data?
  • #157
  • Feb 3, 2018 10:14pm Feb 3, 2018 10:14pm
For Me , i am enjoying each and every update you provide . keep up the great work mate

Its like you are living next door to us . prompt support and help when ever i request it.
  • #158
  • Feb 3, 2018 10:57pm Feb 3, 2018 10:57pm
Quoting kenshin
{quote} Multi-currency backtesting can be done with MT5. Adapting the source code of an ea that runs on MT4 to run on MT5 is not a difficult thing to do now that there is hedging account support in MT5. I recently adapted my own ea. It compiles in MT4 as a 376kb ex4 file and the source is a little over 6000 lines. I started the conversion knowing nothing about MT5 and within 2 weeks I had a version that compiles and works properly on both MT4 and MT5. What I found was that almost all changes required were cosmetic, just different commands to do...
Fair answer.
I'm not familiar with MT5 but a quick search suggests that it was designed for non-hedging FIFO, US brokers. I have no doubt that there is a workaround to the problem, but on a programming point of view, personally I will stick to MT4. The attraction to back test multi pairs is huge, but unless there is a workaround to the hedging and FIFO, i'l give it a miss until they address the issue.

M.
  • #159
  • Feb 4, 2018 12:20am Feb 4, 2018 12:20am
Quoting moodybot
{quote} Fair answer. I'm not familiar with MT5 but a quick search suggests that it was designed for non-hedging FIFO, US brokers. I have no doubt that there is a workaround to the problem, but on a programming point of view, personally I will stick to MT4. The attraction to back test multi pairs is huge, but unless there is a workaround to the hedging and FIFO, i'l give it a miss until they address the issue. M.
You're probably looking at pre-2016 forums posts. I made the same mistake. The earlier MT5 versions didn't support hedging. Lots of people complained, and then in early 2016:
https://www.mql5.com/en/articles/2299
Regarding FIFO, that's only applicable to US based brokers.
  • #160
  • Edited 2:41am Feb 4, 2018 12:22am | Edited 2:41am
Quoting oHannah
{quote} Thanks for the info. Contact me via email so we can discuss this more. Will MT5 also detail the amount of time between ticks in the historical data?
I'm not sure as I didn't need that info in my ea. Get it, and take a look at it. Either that or pose the question on MQL5 forum. I'd safely guess that it does support it. I found that everything needed for my ea (which is a lot) was either supported (maybe with different commands) or was stupidly easy to devise a work around for.
0 traders viewing now