Simple Mathematical System

I have created simple math based EA, no indicator or timeframe requirement which works very well ,fails only if internet connection is not proper. Pls. suggest how can I optimize it without adding any indicator for filtering purpose, I have attached ex4 file pls. forward test & suggest more improvement. Can use default setting or can modify it

Mind telling us how it works so we can suggest improvements?

Are you happy to share the source code??

it will blow up your account real fast. Why bother?

If it "works well" why add or change stuff? Let it run and make millions I would not bother.

I don't get it. If it "works well" why add or change stuff? Let it run and make millions I would not bother.

On start it takes buy & sell order.
Next order will be based on Pip_Distance parameter value i.e
if Pip_Distance = 10 then if market moves 10 pip up from buy price then
it puts buy order with lot multiplier i.e. initial lotsize is 0.01 then
& lot multiplier is 2 then 0.01*2 = 0.02 & vice versa. It continues above
cycle till profit(Sum of All Order should be Postive with Take Profit Value) reached once profit reached it closes all orders

added option to limit spead,

Added option to limit spread,

Need to add start and stop date time so is its only active during larger forex market open times

Also a break even needs to added when the market goes sideways.

auto break even, so it auto move to break even following the move not just initial break even.

I without those option added a can see this blowing an account

@pravin_moule -- nice job. I'd say it looks promising...

In this example the BE should be triggered on the first trade the EA places (eg 0.02) and then track the sum of trades and if it doesnt hit TP but falls back and the sum of the trades nears zero then it should close the trades and start again.

@unseenhero42 -- I think you're changing the strategy and complicating things. Have you tested it or run it in Strategy Tester? There's nothing wrong with visually back testing, but before advocating for changes or discouraging people from experimenting then it requires more than a single sentence describing a cherry-picked data pattern. Your one sentence description means nothing. You claim the sum of the trades nears zero -- show it. Show your calculations.

I've been experimenting and testing @pravin_moule's strategy a fair bit and I think it has **great** potential. It would be a shame if it gets overlooked because of some contrarians who make meaningless statements without backing them up with evidence or test results.

@unseenhero42 -- I don't know you and my tone isn't personal. There's no lack of garbage that gets spouted here at FF, so when something interesting and different comes along then it pisses me off that people are more inclined to knock it instead of looking a bit closer and considering its value. That kind of mentality poisons everything -- not only for yourself but also for others.

EDIT: And how about that "no nothing" bozo a few posts back who advises people not to bother -- as if they really had the necessary knowledge and experience to lecture the rest of us. If you are going to post sh-t like that why bother wasting the electrons...

Hi Steve,

You selectively give your stamp of approval...So Pravin must definitely be onto something...

Sorry didn't mean to offend anyone or knock the strategy, i think its got potential, I did run it on demo account and was just pointing out my observations.

... while posting a back test using "open prices only" mode, 2 points spread, over 74 trades, you attack a member who's suggesting improving ideas (as requested by the thread owner)!! who do you think you are?

below is a back test using tick data. the market can not be beaten using math only, you need a price action ingredient.

@abokwaik -- the suggestions were hand-waving based on zero evidence or test results. What I particularly didn't like was the post "without those option added a can see this blowing an account". In other words, without his suggestions the EA is useless -- which is BS. I don't know about you, but that statement would discourage me from giving it a try. The EA is a gift -- treat it as such.

As for your Strategy Tester Report -- is that suppose to be proof that the EA crashes? If so, you might consider going back to "Data Interpretation 101". After 609 trades spanning over 2 years the curve drops, right? Maybe, maybe not. It could be that your test just ran out of data and, so, the hedging came to an ungraceful end. You will need to look at the timestamps of the trades. It's not a coincidence that the drop occurs at the right-hand edge of the timecourse -- that's where your test runs out of data. And, seriously, you couldn't live with 2 years of winning? Geeez....

And this is your "suggestion"? The market can not be beaten using math only? What does that mean? What do you think an EA is? It's just simple algebra, and the last time I checked algebra was still considered math. And a price action "ingredient"? Come on -- what's that suppose to mean.

Everyone knows -- or should know -- that Strategy Tester is totally unreliable. It might be accurate, it might not be accurate, it might be somewhere in between -- you just never know. The data it uses for simulation is crippled data. But Strategy Tester is not useless -- it does provide clues. If the alternative is to forward test in a demo account for 6 months, I'll spend the two minutes to run a back test in Strategy Tester. My post wasn't "proof" -- rather, it was an attempt to push back against the contrarians who offer nothing except words.

EDIT: Oh -- I see you just started ignoring me. Oh well -- for a "red" badge I'd say you have a very low tolerance for having your feathers ruffled...

EDIT: And you must admit my post did have a positive effect -- it got someone like yourself to actually take a closer look. Good for you. You actually spent the time to perform a tick back test -- and that's very informative. Though I don't necessarily agree with your interpretation, your post is the most valuable contribution to this thread so far (besides @pravin_moule's EA). But it took my push back against the contrarians to motivate you to actually do a test.