I'm quoting myself: anyway since Herb is around, hey HERB do you think my idea of incorporating the CLOSE ALL @ so many pips option is possible (for situations like these) or am I dreaming?
I'm quoting myself
Yeah I was thinking about that. I have absolutely no problem if Herb wants to "correct" the bot and (if I have the time LOL) I might (I will) do some sporadic tests. However, since this current system already works beyond my needs, I'll always keep a "copy" of the bot behind it anyways. Also, I looked at the code, well actually at Herb's email I should say, and in no way are the bots reacting like that, ie: enter trade if DMI is in such and such direction. My experience is that when filters are ON, the trades always materialize when ALL the indicators agree based on my settings for each pair, and the exits as well. So I don't really expect much change in a "corrected" version.
No problemo, and you may as well keep dreaming
I suppose you want to be able to specify the amount of growth of Equity from after start or most recent CloseAll?
Or do you realy want to specify pips (Total accumulated pips from all trades?)
I don't know if I'd want a close all in a situation like this. Say you set a close-all positions at 1000 pips - I still would have missed out on 600 extra pips today, which is alot!
Maybe an option to set the trailing stop to +1000 pips once it reaches a certain threshold.
I just don't see the point in cutting the profit when it could go so much further.
But what do I know. I'm still new to all of this. Just makes sense in my head.
I don't know if I'd want a close all in a situation like this. Say you set a close-all positions at 1000 pips - I still would have missed out on 600 extra pips today, which is alot!
Maybe an option to set the trailing stop to +1000 pips once it reaches a certain threshold.
I just don't see the point in cutting the profit when it could go so much further.
But what do I know. I'm still new to all of this. Just makes sense in my head.
There they are again ... the greedy sweatty hands... at least I do not have them alone here! Well if I'm not asking too much (and I know I am) could we have either option (ahem) either pips, amount of casheroo, or % growth. But (Im not a programmer, I just married one hehe) if that's too ocmplicted, pips will do.
Also the idea of onsetting a trailer after so many pips could also be worth some thinking.
It is certainly good for trades that you cannot monitor all day to give them a target. Our exit strategy still needs testing.
)Yeah I was thinking about that. I have absolutely no problem if Herb wants to "correct" the bot and (if I have the time LOL) I might (I will) do some sporadic tests. However, since this current system already works beyond my needs
Yup sweaty greed is what FUELS the world, but don't light a match heheh or your helium baloon (Led Zeppelin) will go BA-BOOMA!
Stipe would love that!
I don't know how to take this?
You mean to tell me that it behaves to the original SuperNova rules?
Where do you think these crazy trades now and then come from?
The coding in this EA (like I wrote them down before) are absolutely not 100% the original rules.
It's not me who wants to change this expert, let's get that straight
I think it's not worth the trouble to change the core engine, which makes the decisions when to trade, to the original rules.
If anyone wants that, go and use the Skyline version. Works great.
What we can (and should) do, is to write down in "laymens terms" how this EA trades. Gnat already said it right: so we know what and how trading will change if parameters are changed.
Apart from that we can make small corrections in the trading mechanism, but that's all.
It may not be fully SuperNova certified, at least it makes money
Your humble coding slave
Herbert (who is going to bed btw. Gnight all
I don't know how to take this?
You mean to tell me that it behaves to the original SuperNova rules?
Where do you think these crazy trades now and then come from?
The coding in this EA (like I wrote them down before) are absolutely not 100% the original rules.
It's not me who wants to change this expert, let's get that straight
I think it's not worth the trouble to change the core engine, which makes the decisions when to trade, to the original rules.
If anyone wants that, go and use the Skyline version. Works great.
What we can (and should) do, is to write down in "laymens terms" how this EA trades. Gnat already said it right: so we know what and how trading will change if parameters are changed.
Apart from that we can make small corrections in the trading mechanism, but that's all.
It may not be fully SuperNova certified, at least it makes money
Your humble coding slave
Herbert (who is going to bed btw. Gnight all
was nice to see you here today. Hope you rest well. And I totally agree that we need to understand how the bot behaves BEFORE we initiate any changes, so I'll be constantly monitoring it/them (of course if my other WORK didn't interfere.........) I'll do my best anyway. Here's a little pic I'd like to share. It's the latest CLOSED (aka in da pocketta) trades by my beloved B&Bs.... Look at the "drawdown".............
Seems that a co-existance between B&B and Autos should really make a nice combo.
G'night Herb-a-claus
SEE YA TOMORROW
