DislikedDecember 3rd. It is backtesting according to the rules from the first post just changed one rule. do not count back 14 candles. The result is: 2 -wins 3 -looses 1 -be I traded from 9am till 5 pm The result of third day is +16 Enough for today)) {image} {image} {image}Ignored
40-60 rule, Trader using trendline secret method
- #224
- Edited 6:33am Jan 11, 2026 5:52am | Edited 6:33am
Hello,
I usually don't bother with creating EA's that originate from public forums but this one seemed interested enough so I went ahead and created it.
I downloaded the word file where chris outlined instructions for the EA. It took me a while to figure out how to create this, but I have done it.
Firstly, let's take an example so everybody reading this understands how the EA functions:
BULLISH SETUP Example:
STEP 1: ZigZag Swing Detection
- EA detects a swing LOW at 1.0850 (bar 10)
- Previous swing HIGH was at 1.0950
- Swing size = 100 pips (meets minimum)
STEP 2: Draw Horizontal Line
- Gets CLOSE price of swing LOW candle = 1.0855
- Draws horizontal line from bar 10 to bar 0 (10 candles right)
STEP 3: Find Trendline Anchor
- From bar 0, looks BACK 14 candles (bars 0-14)
- Finds lowest LOW = 1.0840 at bar 7
STEP 4: Draw Diagonal Trendline
- Point A: (bar 0, 1.0855) horizontal endpoint
- Point B: (bar 7, 1.0840) anchor point
- Slope calculated and extended right
STEP 5: Monitor for Breach
Price approaches the trendline:
- Bar 1: Close = 1.0860, Trendline = 1.0857 Wait
- Bar 2: Close = 1.0865, Trendline = 1.0859 BREACH
STEP 6: Entry Execution
- On the next bar open (bar 3):
- BUY at ASK = 1.0867
- Stop Loss: 1.0867 - 40 pips = 1.0827
- Take Profit: 1.0867 + 60 pips = 1.0927
STEP 7: Trade Management
- Setup deactivates (ignores new setups until trade closes)
- Position remains open until SL or TP is hit
- Then EA resumes looking for new setups
In the original document, there was stuff about "stalling" prices, but not enough details were given where I could make it mechanical. Also, there was breakeven logic aswell as re-entry logic which are suppose to be in a sense improved version from baseline. But, I still went ahead without these options to get a benchmark.
Hence, this is what I have gotten.
The results of this EA are extremely poor. The test was done from 2025-01-01 till 2025-12-31 on M1 timeframe of XAUUSD.
Parameters:
Graph:
Backtest:
Important Notes:
1. Repainting Risk: ZigZag swings can shift. If a swing disappears, the setup will naturally fail (price won't breach a non-existent trendline). However, it still can create false positives. I am working on MQL5, so using the default ZigZag indicator provided by MT5.
2. Divergent Strategy Logic Risk: As said previously, I am not sure if my implementation of the EA is correct. That's why I have provided a detailed example above so chris and everybody else reading this can verify it.
I usually don't bother with creating EA's that originate from public forums but this one seemed interested enough so I went ahead and created it.
I downloaded the word file where chris outlined instructions for the EA. It took me a while to figure out how to create this, but I have done it.
Firstly, let's take an example so everybody reading this understands how the EA functions:
BULLISH SETUP Example:
STEP 1: ZigZag Swing Detection
- EA detects a swing LOW at 1.0850 (bar 10)
- Previous swing HIGH was at 1.0950
- Swing size = 100 pips (meets minimum)
STEP 2: Draw Horizontal Line
- Gets CLOSE price of swing LOW candle = 1.0855
- Draws horizontal line from bar 10 to bar 0 (10 candles right)
STEP 3: Find Trendline Anchor
- From bar 0, looks BACK 14 candles (bars 0-14)
- Finds lowest LOW = 1.0840 at bar 7
STEP 4: Draw Diagonal Trendline
- Point A: (bar 0, 1.0855) horizontal endpoint
- Point B: (bar 7, 1.0840) anchor point
- Slope calculated and extended right
STEP 5: Monitor for Breach
Price approaches the trendline:
- Bar 1: Close = 1.0860, Trendline = 1.0857 Wait
- Bar 2: Close = 1.0865, Trendline = 1.0859 BREACH
STEP 6: Entry Execution
- On the next bar open (bar 3):
- BUY at ASK = 1.0867
- Stop Loss: 1.0867 - 40 pips = 1.0827
- Take Profit: 1.0867 + 60 pips = 1.0927
STEP 7: Trade Management
- Setup deactivates (ignores new setups until trade closes)
- Position remains open until SL or TP is hit
- Then EA resumes looking for new setups
In the original document, there was stuff about "stalling" prices, but not enough details were given where I could make it mechanical. Also, there was breakeven logic aswell as re-entry logic which are suppose to be in a sense improved version from baseline. But, I still went ahead without these options to get a benchmark.
Hence, this is what I have gotten.
The results of this EA are extremely poor. The test was done from 2025-01-01 till 2025-12-31 on M1 timeframe of XAUUSD.
Parameters:
Graph:
Backtest:
Important Notes:
1. Repainting Risk: ZigZag swings can shift. If a swing disappears, the setup will naturally fail (price won't breach a non-existent trendline). However, it still can create false positives. I am working on MQL5, so using the default ZigZag indicator provided by MT5.
2. Divergent Strategy Logic Risk: As said previously, I am not sure if my implementation of the EA is correct. That's why I have provided a detailed example above so chris and everybody else reading this can verify it.
--tbc
— Developed by MMQ
- #225
- Edited 6:22am Jan 11, 2026 6:07am | Edited 6:22am
--continued
As stated previously, the results were poor, however this EA (either wrong or correct form the original author's perspective) has potential at longer timeframes.
This test was again done on the same market, same 1-year period but on H1 Timeframe.
Parameters: The default settings except the TP is changed from 60 --> 80
Graph:
Backtest:
Although, the results are not extremely impressive, they are somewhat encouraging for a novel method. I have not experimented with the EA enough to say if it's retail-standard. But, the initial impressions at longer timeframe seems to be motivating enough where a person can experiment with it.
The most obvious flaws I can see is that the EA is doing an overwhelming amount of trades. A stricter entry filter can be beneficial here. The equity graph also shows an interesting cycle that can be studied to correlate with regimes. Maybe some regimes are more profitable than others and the equity graph clearly highlights this.
Anyways, I just wanted to share this with the forum as I thought it was an interesting strat nonetheless. I am willing to go an extra mile if chris or others can highlight the flaws in this EA (if at all) or we can perhaps optimize it further.
As having the advantage of an EA, I can confidently say that in its crude form, this strategy is worthless and should be optimized further. I am not saying this to disrespect the creator of this strategy, but for people who are trading with this strategy/method on live accounts should be warned.
To the author(s) and the community I welcome criticism on the EA.
— Developed by MMQ
- #227
- Jan 11, 2026 10:10am Jan 11, 2026 10:10am
In the mean-time, I tested the strategy on other markets. And the results are interesting.
As per the results, please assume the TF is H1 and the tested period is 2023-2025. Default parameters were used.
EURUSD:
GBPUSD:
EURGBP:
SPX500: The pip settings for this market is a bit different than forex and gold. Hence, the Minimum ZigZag Swing = 800, TP = 300, SL = 200
From the above results, EURUSD and SPX500 were the best performers. I have not changed the strategy, it's the same as before, just different markets and the H1 timeframe. I did test on other forex pairs such as USDJPY, EURCAD, GBPAUD and even OIL, but the strategy did not do well in those specific markets.
From my brief experiments, the results are now extremely encouraging. The SPX500 results are absolutely phenomenal. The deposit was 1000 and the net profit we got was 10k. The strategy gave a literal 10x return! Even performed better than the S&P by quite a margin.
I think the strategy is great, but it's still in its unrefined state. I believe, if a little bit of effort is put into optimization on entry and exits, some basic risk management + dynamic position sizing, the strategy can prove to be fruitful.
As per the results, please assume the TF is H1 and the tested period is 2023-2025. Default parameters were used.
EURUSD:
GBPUSD:
EURGBP:
SPX500: The pip settings for this market is a bit different than forex and gold. Hence, the Minimum ZigZag Swing = 800, TP = 300, SL = 200
From the above results, EURUSD and SPX500 were the best performers. I have not changed the strategy, it's the same as before, just different markets and the H1 timeframe. I did test on other forex pairs such as USDJPY, EURCAD, GBPAUD and even OIL, but the strategy did not do well in those specific markets.
From my brief experiments, the results are now extremely encouraging. The SPX500 results are absolutely phenomenal. The deposit was 1000 and the net profit we got was 10k. The strategy gave a literal 10x return! Even performed better than the S&P by quite a margin.
I think the strategy is great, but it's still in its unrefined state. I believe, if a little bit of effort is put into optimization on entry and exits, some basic risk management + dynamic position sizing, the strategy can prove to be fruitful.
— Developed by MMQ
- #228
- Edited 2:03pm Jan 11, 2026 1:52pm | Edited 2:03pm
- Joined Apr 2013 | Status: Trader | 1,590 Posts
Hello, I usually don't bother with creating EA's that originate from public forums but this one seemed interested enough so I went ahead and created it. I downloaded the word file where chris outlined instructions for the EA. It took me a while to figure out how to create this, but I have done it. Firstly, let's take an example so everybody reading this understands how the EA functions: BULLISH SETUP Example: STEP 1: ZigZag Swing Detection - EA detects a swing LOW at 1.0850 (bar 10) - Previous swing HIGH was at 1.0950 - Swing size = 100 pips (meets...
Glad to see you did not give up and tried more charts ( I also have that tenacity to keep trying new/different things).
I am going to post some charts with historical trades from Friday and a small synopsis of the new tweaks to the rules I have been working on. There is also another indicator I want to include in the mix along with some MM changes.
First off, let's get to the additional indicator. It is called Fractal ZigZag non re-paint.
I want to include this for a couple reasons...as we all know the ZZ re-paints on any new high/low inside of it's set parameters, what the indi does is put an arrow on the chart that corresponds with those new highs/lows of the ZZ but the difference is it needs to have a Fractal set-up in order to print the arrow. Consequently it removes much of the noise created by the ZZ alone. These arrows now become the levels to initiate a trade (after all primary rules are met).
Before we get to examples I would like to review the rule tweaks and MM ideas.
So we first need an arrow to print at a swing of at least 100 pips...because we are waiting for a Fractal set-up we will need to see the next 2 printed candles (obviously). Then we can draw the 10 candle and the diagonal lines. The tweak here is if price is already beyond the diagonal line then NO TRADE(1 trade shown in the examples as a profitable trade is in fact a no trade). If price comes back inside Diagonal line then a new trade could set-up. (see inserted pic).
Please see post 156 for full rules. I would change the diagonal line to be placed on the highest/lowest point of the last 14 candles...I think that where I have stipulated things to "user input" should remain as such. I would also make the re-entry as a true/false option.
The changes to MM are as follows, an option to move to BE after "X" amount of pips or RR (1RR is what I would choose). At 1RR we would have two profitable trade close at BE (in the pics I have uploaded in this post). The other change would be to have a trade close for a loss at either the SL or, as Jamesagnew, suggests, the 10 candle line, whichever is closer.
I think that is it so far.
The first chart is showing an entry when price is already below the diagonal line (because of the Fractal needing to set-up).
The next 2 charts show the trades from last Friday on a Gold 1M chart. Arrows that do not have lines associated with them are either not a 100 pip move or they were trades that did not trigger, alternatively they were not a trade because a trade was already open.
Please note the fibs are only there to show the SL Entry and the 1RR (for BE) and 1.5RR for TP. You can see where the SL may or may not be the actual loss because the 10 candle line is hit first.
Here is the Fractal ZigZag non repaint indicator. (no idea why there is two).
Chris
- #235
- Jan 12, 2026 4:08pm Jan 12, 2026 4:08pm
- Joined Apr 2013 | Status: Trader | 1,590 Posts
{quote} Unfortunately, I don't understand the original system. I don't see a zigzag swing larger than 100 pips. I don't see the candle numbering. I don't see the entry.
- #236
- Edited 7:03pm Jan 12, 2026 6:46pm | Edited 7:03pm
Hello,
I have an update and an important one for the people who are invested in this.
I followed Chris's guidelines and made the Expert Advisor. However, I am seeing discrepancy between the example trades from friday.
Here's the an example from my strategy tester:
Here's the missing trades from Chris's SS:
The issue arises from missing Fractal Zig Zag Arrows which are needed for confirmation by the EA. However, in MQL5 those arrows show up, in MQL4 they did not.
To further investigate the issue, I converted James indicator that does not repaint. However, the result was the same. Arrows were printing, whereas on Chris's SS, it wasn't printing. (I have attached the MQL5 version of the James Indicator)
There are 3 possible explanations:
1. Broker Data is different, hence the indicator behaves differently
2. My MQL4 conversion had issues (I have verified it doesn't)
3. The MQL4 indicator does indeed repaint (this will need to be verified through the visual mode in the strategy tester)
Otherwise, I have no idea why the trades exist. But, this discrepancy is causing a lot of trades that are actually loosing. Same as before.
My testing is extremely rigorous for any strategy. I use real ticks, and if I don't believe the modeling, I will try to use other brokers data feed to see if the results are same or not and even do visual testing to verify everything is working as intended.
So, I wanted to clear this up. The results from my EA are different because of this discrepancy. If this difference is caused by the issues I have listed above, than this means everybody will have different results depending on their broker, indicator and usage of MQL4 vs MQL5.
Because of this discrepancy. I am no longer developing the EA. It seems unfair to the people who are genuinely interested in making this work. So I don't want differing results between us, and I assume you also don't want that.
If I can get some explanation of why this discrepancy was caused, and the answer seems to be logical enough I will pursue the development. But until than, this is nothing than false hope. The strategy itself has merit, but because of its dependencies, it's proving to be difficult to work with.
Although, seeing such interest in this strategy (I received some PM's asking for the EA), I can create an indicator for this strategy. If people do show interest in the forum, I will make it within a day, it's not that hard to implement. It will just make the process of putting lines a little convenient. So let me know.
I have an update and an important one for the people who are invested in this.
I followed Chris's guidelines and made the Expert Advisor. However, I am seeing discrepancy between the example trades from friday.
Here's the an example from my strategy tester:
Here's the missing trades from Chris's SS:
The issue arises from missing Fractal Zig Zag Arrows which are needed for confirmation by the EA. However, in MQL5 those arrows show up, in MQL4 they did not.
To further investigate the issue, I converted James indicator that does not repaint. However, the result was the same. Arrows were printing, whereas on Chris's SS, it wasn't printing. (I have attached the MQL5 version of the James Indicator)
There are 3 possible explanations:
1. Broker Data is different, hence the indicator behaves differently
2. My MQL4 conversion had issues (I have verified it doesn't)
3. The MQL4 indicator does indeed repaint (this will need to be verified through the visual mode in the strategy tester)
Otherwise, I have no idea why the trades exist. But, this discrepancy is causing a lot of trades that are actually loosing. Same as before.
My testing is extremely rigorous for any strategy. I use real ticks, and if I don't believe the modeling, I will try to use other brokers data feed to see if the results are same or not and even do visual testing to verify everything is working as intended.
So, I wanted to clear this up. The results from my EA are different because of this discrepancy. If this difference is caused by the issues I have listed above, than this means everybody will have different results depending on their broker, indicator and usage of MQL4 vs MQL5.
Because of this discrepancy. I am no longer developing the EA. It seems unfair to the people who are genuinely interested in making this work. So I don't want differing results between us, and I assume you also don't want that.
If I can get some explanation of why this discrepancy was caused, and the answer seems to be logical enough I will pursue the development. But until than, this is nothing than false hope. The strategy itself has merit, but because of its dependencies, it's proving to be difficult to work with.
Although, seeing such interest in this strategy (I received some PM's asking for the EA), I can create an indicator for this strategy. If people do show interest in the forum, I will make it within a day, it's not that hard to implement. It will just make the process of putting lines a little convenient. So let me know.
— Developed by MMQ
- #237
- Edited 8:20pm Jan 12, 2026 7:57pm | Edited 8:20pm
- Joined Apr 2013 | Status: Trader | 1,590 Posts
Sorry amvt
My bad...
I had the settings at 36 15 3 instead of 12 5 3
It is not you it's me LOL
This is the zoomed out chart in question I think all the arrows are there now both indis set to 12 5 3
I want to show something I have not seen yet...an anomaly, we have a red arrow after a swing high but no swing low first. Again, as above, it may be because of my higher settings
My bad...
I had the settings at 36 15 3 instead of 12 5 3
It is not you it's me LOL
This is the zoomed out chart in question I think all the arrows are there now both indis set to 12 5 3
I want to show something I have not seen yet...an anomaly, we have a red arrow after a swing high but no swing low first. Again, as above, it may be because of my higher settings