Supernova GBP/JPY Mini Trend Catcher | Page 219 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Forex Trend Catcher EA 721 replies

trend catcher fib ea 5 replies

Early Trend Catcher Part2 46 replies

Early Trend Catcher 31 replies

Trend Catcher 5 replies

Attachments: Supernova GBP/JPY Mini Trend Catcher
Exit Attachments

Supernova GBP/JPY Mini Trend Catcher

  • #4,361
  • Jan 18, 2008 2:18pm Jan 18, 2008 2:18pm
Can you guys check the post I put up last hight? Page 289, post #4332 & 4335 Thanks.

Oh yea, put me on your list of testers as this is gettin' fun.
  • #4,362
  • Jan 18, 2008 3:00pm Jan 18, 2008 3:00pm
Quoting wolfeman
Can you guys check the post I put up last hight? Page 289, post #4332 & 4335 Thanks.

Oh yea, put me on your list of testers as this is gettin' fun.
Hi Wolfe,

Good catch! I think Glenn will be very happy. There have always been problems with LaGuerre and when I took over the code the first thing I did was fix the fact that it was not being reliably tested. I assumed the logic was correct, but I believe that it has always been wrong for the short exit. I went back and checked the logic for all the other LaGuerre tests and they all look to be correct.

So here is a quick update with the LaGuerre fix. Please give this a go when the market opens. This is the only update to the EA in this beta, but I feel that it is important enough to generate a release.

Rick
Attached File(s)
File Type: ex4 SuperNova EA (Glenn) v1.7.Beta5.ex4   30 KB | 435 downloads
  • #4,363
  • Jan 18, 2008 3:40pm Jan 18, 2008 3:40pm
I set up on two different IBFX MT4 platforms. Indicators used default values.

1. Just GBPJPY. Different tfs. 15,30,60,240. QQE entry/exit. Plus, 5,15,30,60 that used the new CheckConfirmingTF of 240 for my test. 3% per trade. It was up 14% in just a few hours executing different tfs and trades. Wow! Guess what? Ended the day down at -5%. EXITS, EXITS, EXITS.

2. GJ, GU, EJ EC(HF). 15 min, QQE entry/exit. Up more than 3% initially, down -3% at end of day.

I like some of the trades in 1 where basically they exit on retrace (QQE on own tf) and then enter again as the short-term trend resumes to match that defined longer-term trend. Just tried the 240 in this example. Guess what... the GJ QQE has been long on the 240 for more than the last 24 hrs. Problem here was that 240 was not a good choice overall as only around the 1st 8 of 24 hrs was the trend really up.

This testing was as much to test the functionality of beta4. Definitely profit targets and trailing stops require looking at, but some trades go negative 60+ pips before they turn around positive. No defined exits let some trades run to bigger profits than they would have with trailing stop.

Oh, and the old 1.4 account - same set up as test 2 - made 8% in last 24 hrs and is up 12% in 2 weeks, but down 7% this week. But that's history.

Two more suggestions, Rick:

1. Can PSAR be included in entry/exit criteria in exactly same way as the MOM and others? I've seen some situations where that might help.

2. About Comment lines in preset files. Would it also be worthwhile if another comment line from the preset file is displayed as top line on the chart - this one defines the strategy? This way you know exactly which strategy you have on which chart. Best to have your own or group naming standard so that when you see screen shots everyone else has an idea of what the set up is.

That's it right now.
  • #4,364
  • Jan 18, 2008 3:54pm Jan 18, 2008 3:54pm
If you need additional tester, count me in.
  • #4,365
  • Edited 4:22pm Jan 18, 2008 4:00pm | Edited 4:22pm
Quoting fxtradera
I set up on two different IBFX MT4 platforms. Indicators used default values.

1. Just GBPJPY. Different tfs. 15,30,60,240. QQE entry/exit. Plus, 5,15,30,60 that used the new CheckConfirmingTF of 240 for my test. 3% per trade. It was up 14% in just a few hours executing different tfs and trades. Wow! Guess what? Ended the day down at -5%. EXITS, EXITS, EXITS.

2. GJ, GU, EJ EC(HF). 15 min, QQE entry/exit. Up more than 3% initially, down -3% at end of day.

I like some of the trades in 1 where basically they exit on retrace (QQE on own tf) and then enter again as the short-term trend resumes to match that defined longer-term trend. Just tried the 240 in this example. Guess what... the GJ QQE has been long on the 240 for more than the last 24 hrs. Problem here was that 240 was not a good choice overall as only around the 1st 8 of 24 hrs was the trend really up.

This testing was as much to test the functionality of beta4. Definitely profit targets and trailing stops require looking at, but some trades go negative 60+ pips before they turn around positive. No defined exits let some trades run to bigger profits than they would have with trailing stop.

Oh, and the old 1.4 account - same set up as test 2 - made 8% in last 24 hrs and is up 12% in 2 weeks, but down 7% this week. But that's history.

Two more suggestions, Rick:

1. Can PSAR be included in entry/exit criteria in exactly same way as the MOM and others? I've seen some situations where that might help.

2. About Comment lines in preset files. Would it also be worthwhile if another comment line from the preset file is displayed as top line on the chart - this one defines the strategy? This way you know exactly which strategy you have on which chart. Best to have your own or group naming standard so that when you see screen shots everyone else has an idea of what the set up is.

That's it right now.
Hi Tradera,

Great tests! With regard to exits, that is always the tricky bit. Those default settings for entry and exit indicators used are more or less random, though the indicator values are close to the accepted settings for strategies using those indicators. They are not optimized at all. Once we have been through the first round of beta testing, I will set the defaults indicators and any indicator specific values based on our findings. Also, use of the trailing stop probably would have preserved most of your gains, as you imply, but you were testing out of the box settings which is great. In addition, I believe that Gnat's alternate TF exits will also greatly help your exits. Lastly, I have built a testbed that I am using to test some QQE entry and exit logic that will hopefully improve the reactivity of the entries and exits by one full bar. The early results are encouraging, but I still have more to do.

A question. Did your losing trades occur mostly in the dead zone or before 12:00 EST?

The answer to your questions are Yes and Yes.

OK, so now we have a beta 5 and are getting some great input. I would encourage you to include .set files when you can, so that we can see all of the settings.

Rick
  • #4,366
  • Jan 18, 2008 4:29pm Jan 18, 2008 4:29pm
Quoting rmyers
Hi Wolfe,

Good catch! I think Glenn will be very happy. There have always been problems with LaGuerre and when I took over the code the first thing I did was fix the fact that it was not being reliably tested. I assumed the logic was correct, but I believe that it has always been wrong for the short exit. I went back and checked the logic for all the other LaGuerre tests and they all look to be correct.

So here is a quick update with the LaGuerre fix. Please give this a go when the market opens. This is the only update to the EA in this beta, but I feel that it is important enough to generate a release.

Rick
Thank again Rick. I will fire this up on Sunday night!

Speaking of Awesome, where are you? We want you back...

Have a great weekend all!
  • #4,367
  • Jan 18, 2008 4:43pm Jan 18, 2008 4:43pm
Quoting wolfeman
Thank again Rick. I will fire this up on Sunday night!

Speaking of Awesome, where are you? We want you back...

Have a great weekend all!
Thanks Wolfster!

Hope the weekend will be great - or minimum silent here! Today it was so loud that I am happy the MT4 platforms do not falter on noise!
Lady Awesome is doing alright from what I hear and she has much more time at her hands now trading the market. Guess in a few timespans she will be back - Mountain Dew ready - trading the markets dizzy!

I'll count you and Alex, Carol and Tradera and all the others in for testing! Get your USD 5000 accounts ready!

Ciao
Gnat-Matt

edit: Great catch there on the Laguerre!!
  • #4,368
  • Jan 18, 2008 4:51pm Jan 18, 2008 4:51pm
Quoting rmyers
Hi Wolfe,

Good catch! I think Glenn will be very happy. There have always been problems with LaGuerre and when I took over the code the first thing I did was fix the fact that it was not being reliably tested. I assumed the logic was correct, but I believe that it has always been wrong for the short exit. I went back and checked the logic for all the other LaGuerre tests and they all look to be correct.

So here is a quick update with the LaGuerre fix. Please give this a go when the market opens. This is the only update to the EA in this beta, but I feel that it is important enough to generate a release.

Rick
Hallo Rick!

Thanks for that fast mending of the Laguerre! Will get that beta5 running on my Sunday night. Somehow I do not get the hang of Laguerre and the Wolfster seemed to like it from the beginning! Here it really paid out nicely.

My account maybe looks nice as the beta4 ran on the 1H. So some of the noise was filtered and one could see the diversifying effect of 14 pairs working side by side on unoptimized settings.

If you include the PSAR as tradera asked for in a later version, please make that one extra, as I need the PSAR as it is for most of my standing strategies. Have you looked into combining it with a trigger? (The firemen story?)

Very good work here on all frontiers... unfortunately I could not move as I wanted today! :

See you later and have a nice weekend!
Matt
  • #4,369
  • Jan 18, 2008 4:57pm Jan 18, 2008 4:57pm
Quoting fxtradera
I set up on two different IBFX MT4 platforms. Indicators used default values.

1. Just GBPJPY. Different tfs. 15,30,60,240. QQE entry/exit. Plus, 5,15,30,60 that used the new CheckConfirmingTF of 240 for my test. 3% per trade. It was up 14% in just a few hours executing different tfs and trades. Wow! Guess what? Ended the day down at -5%. EXITS, EXITS, EXITS.

2. GJ, GU, EJ EC(HF). 15 min, QQE entry/exit. Up more than 3% initially, down -3% at end of day.

I like some of the trades in 1 where basically they exit on retrace (QQE on own tf) and then enter again as the short-term trend resumes to match that defined longer-term trend. Just tried the 240 in this example. Guess what... the GJ QQE has been long on the 240 for more than the last 24 hrs. Problem here was that 240 was not a good choice overall as only around the 1st 8 of 24 hrs was the trend really up.

This testing was as much to test the functionality of beta4. Definitely profit targets and trailing stops require looking at, but some trades go negative 60+ pips before they turn around positive. No defined exits let some trades run to bigger profits than they would have with trailing stop.

Oh, and the old 1.4 account - same set up as test 2 - made 8% in last 24 hrs and is up 12% in 2 weeks, but down 7% this week. But that's history.

Two more suggestions, Rick:

1. Can PSAR be included in entry/exit criteria in exactly same way as the MOM and others? I've seen some situations where that might help.

2. About Comment lines in preset files. Would it also be worthwhile if another comment line from the preset file is displayed as top line on the chart - this one defines the strategy? This way you know exactly which strategy you have on which chart. Best to have your own or group naming standard so that when you see screen shots everyone else has an idea of what the set up is.

That's it right now.
Hi Tradera!

Comments line will really help and I guess we will have the benefits of that in the group effort sooner than later!
PSAR is alright as a "normal exit", but I need the extra PSAR settable, as I already have a heap of data for that and it helps a lot. Will let you see after the functionality of the EA is rock solid!

On the different TFs the results could not really have been brilliant at this stage, but I am happy you tested it and saw that it worked! This is a major achievement on Rick's side, as this was not accomplished in the past.

Thanks a lot for your input here and if you have some time I would like toguide you to a few useable data of the past and maybe its value for our testing in the near future both forward and backwward.

Have a good weekend and thanks for the good input all over here!
Greetz!
Matt
  • #4,370
  • Jan 18, 2008 6:24pm Jan 18, 2008 6:24pm
For testing purposes, would it not make more sense to test pairs that are uncorrelated?
  • #4,371
  • Jan 19, 2008 4:01am Jan 19, 2008 4:01am
Quoting Gnat
Thanks Wolfster!

Hope the weekend will be great - or minimum silent here! Today it was so loud that I am happy the MT4 platforms do not falter on noise!
Lady Awesome is doing alright from what I hear and she has much more time at her hands now trading the market. Guess in a few timespans she will be back - Mountain Dew ready - trading the markets dizzy!

I'll count you and Alex, Carol and Tradera and all the others in for testing! Get your USD 5000 accounts ready!

Ciao
Gnat-Matt

edit: Great catch there on the Laguerre!!
I can't wait to gang up on this. I have 5 seperate MT4's on my computer and will ditch all the old stuff for 5 new 5000USD mini's when IBFX opens on Sunday. Let's see if we can get Glen and Orion to join us...you guys in?
  • #4,372
  • Jan 19, 2008 5:16am Jan 19, 2008 5:16am
Quoting wolfeman
I can't wait to gang up on this. I have 5 seperate MT4's on my computer and will ditch all the old stuff for 5 new 5000USD mini's when IBFX opens on Sunday. Let's see if we can get Glen and Orion to join us...you guys in?
Sure....I'm in.
  • #4,373
  • Jan 19, 2008 5:49am Jan 19, 2008 5:49am
Quoting cashfinder
Hi all,

I have demo v1.4 for 3 days on 5min TF (using 7 pairs), it always have entries.

I install v1.7 beta 4 today and run for 3 hours already, but no trade opened. I am using default settings. I feel strange why there are no trade opened?

Also I want to confirm one thing, Entry rules enabled: QQE DMI CCI Lag T3 <-- is that ALL condition agreed to open trade or ANY of the entry rule agree only?

Thanks very much

Carlton
Hallo Carlton!

In the middle of all the new things flying around here I completely missed your post here. Sorry for that!

On your entry rules it really means that ALL of them have to be meeting the conditions they were set for in order to trigger a trade. This corsette of ruels that you left in there will be averse to many a trade and may only bring you in 10 times a month.

So I assume that in fact everything is alright and within 3 hours there was no need to enter any trade. Please get the beta5 version that came out last night and start it on Sunday as the market reopens.

5M may in fact not be a very practicable TF to trade an EA in the long run. Scalping with an EA is like stock car racing with a bulldozer. I know that our little machine here is nimble, but it gave me a hard time on 15M to make money !!

Sorry for being late and welcome to the show!
Gnat
  • #4,374
  • Jan 19, 2008 5:53am Jan 19, 2008 5:53am
Quoting orion70
Sure....I'm in.
Cool!

__________________

And on your correlation topic: GBPJPY & USDCHF & EURGBP would then be better. Leaving the connection between the very fast and the very slow, but with really small interference. If we want another snail we would then look at the EURCHF and that would contain the CHF again, a currency we would practicably not look at in Supernova country.

Greetz!
GMatt
  • #4,375
  • Jan 19, 2008 6:05am Jan 19, 2008 6:05am
Quoting Gnat
Cool!

__________________

And on your correlation topic: GBPJPY & USDCHF & EURGBP would then be better. Leaving the connection between the very fast and the very slow, but with really small interference. If we want another snail we would then look at the EURCHF and that would contain the CHF again, a currency we would practicably not look at in Supernova country.

Greetz!
GMatt
Rick is working on the testing criteria....correct?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we don't all need to use the same broker but I think we should use the same account size, margin and risk percentage.

Can't wait to start on this. I can run 2 or 3 platforms and probably can set up a web site where MT4 can auto-post our results for comparison purposes in real-time.
  • #4,376
  • Jan 19, 2008 7:00am Jan 19, 2008 7:00am
Quoting orion70
Rick is working on the testing criteria....correct?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, we don't all need to use the same broker but I think we should use the same account size, margin and risk percentage.

Can't wait to start on this. I can run 2 or 3 platforms and probably can set up a web site where MT4 can auto-post our results for comparison purposes in real-time.
Hi Orion,

I agree that the account size, margin, and risk should be the same for all tests.

I have been thinking about possible approaches to testing that would give us the most data over the course of 1 market week periods. Given the number of parameters, we need to start with coarse settings and then refine. My thinking was that for the first round we eliminate Money Management(despite my belief that MM is the heart of trend following strategies). This includes the TakeProfit and StopLoss values that were the defaults in 1.4. We will just let the indicators do the work so we can evaluate the effectiveness of entries and exits. So we would divide up the first round by indicators.
Tester 1 applies QQE entry and exit to the agreed upon pairs and timeframes
Tester 2 applies QQE + Laguerre entry and exit to the agreed upon pairs and timeframes
Tester 3 applies QQE + CCI entry and exit to the agreed upon pairs and timeframes

and so on and so on.

I realize this does not take into account all the possible combinations, but it allows each tester to focus primarily on 1 filter indicator + QQE. That way, we can determine the validity of entries and exits and adjust settings one indicator at a time per tester to try to find the best entry and exit settings.

After we feel we have found the best settings, we can devise tests for money management and more esoteric features like alternate exit timeframes. Especially over longer timeframes, this is where the true profitability of all trend following strategies lies. It is desirable, but not necessary to have more winners than losers. Many trend following systems actually lose more than they win, but are profitable because they cut their losers short and let their winners run. If Supernova could, through our testing, have a high winning percentage plus be good at letting winners run while minimizing drawdown, then we will have something really special. We already have some good MM in the current version, but I will probably add pyramiding/scaling in out as their is a lot of potential for profit on the 4 hour and daily timeframes using these methods.

Our approach to scalping will be a bit different. A pair like the GBPJPY will be hard to scalp on shorter TF's because of the spread. In a scenario like this our best MM might be the 1.4 approach of fixed targets and stops, with indicators as backups.

Lastly, there have been several feature requests that I will include in 1.6 like enhanced comments, PSAR added to the indicators list (Matt, I will leave the original PSAR in there as I know you have got that functionality working really well and we will all benefit), and automatic generation of a screen capture of the chart whever an order is opened or closed. I would really like to have that stuff in there for this first round, but I feel that this first week of testing we should focus on making sure what I just released is solid and also with getting our testing environments in synch. There are some new volunteers that may need a few tries to get the hang of setting up Supernova. Rather than have many starts and stops, we can use this week to finalize the pairs, timeframes and who will test what, plus get some informal testing done. Then we will all be ready to go with a clean slate after that. This will also allow me to get 1.6 done.

These are only suggestions. Let's get some debate going on this and come to a concensus.

I am traveling for business today (what rotten timing), but will be online sporadically until Sunday afternoon. From then on I should be online.

Rick
  • #4,377
  • Jan 19, 2008 8:31am Jan 19, 2008 8:31am
Wolfy: Nice catch. I have been seeing that, and it was driving me nuts.
I thought I did not understand how it was meant to work.
Yeah, I am in for the testing.
Rick: You are a machine. Yes, I like this repair, more than you know.
You have rebuilt this EA from the basement up.
Flything: Your one hour window will likely prove optimal.
  • #4,378
  • Jan 19, 2008 8:50am Jan 19, 2008 8:50am
Rick

Everything you say makes perfect sense to me. Raring to go with the pretest week
  • #4,379
  • Jan 19, 2008 8:56am Jan 19, 2008 8:56am
Hi Gnat,

Thanks very much for your detail reply.
Regarding the entry, it needs to meet ALL the condition.
But how about the exit rules? Also needs to meet ALL conditions?

Have a nice day.


Carlton



Quoting Gnat
Hallo Carlton!

In the middle of all the new things flying around here I completely missed your post here. Sorry for that!

On your entry rules it really means that ALL of them have to be meeting the conditions they were set for in order to trigger a trade. This corsette of ruels that you left in there will be averse to many a trade and may only bring you in 10 times a month.

So I assume that in fact everything is alright and within 3 hours there was no need to enter any trade. Please get the beta5 version that came out last night and start it on Sunday as the market reopens.

5M may in fact not be a very practicable TF to trade an EA in the long run. Scalping with an EA is like stock car racing with a bulldozer. I know that our little machine here is nimble, but it gave me a hard time on 15M to make money !!

Sorry for being late and welcome to the show!
Gnat
  • #4,380
  • Jan 19, 2008 9:00am Jan 19, 2008 9:00am
Any reaction about the yesterday seetings? good/bad/very bad? Need to know if im going to the right direction on my optimizing.
0 traders viewing now