Just wondering if anyone trades this system with AUD/JPY,CHF/JPY and CAD/JPY and what are the results like compared to GBP/JPY and EUR/JPY.
Ignored
They're all profitable, i've tested them all. I focus on GBP/JPY and EUR/JPY because they make the most. The other pairs make about 1/3 as much as GBP/JPY.
System works because it have have a simple plan and High RR.
There are several input of this system:
1. box begin time, which 4 H1 candle?
2. buffer size
3. TP size 2X? 3X ....10X
The concept/logic(the hurd effect) of why system work is more important than better backtest result.
If the system is really work, then the parameter can vary, but the overall system will be profit after a relative large sample size(at least 100 weeks)
It does not matter use 2100-100 GMT or 2200-200GMT or 00-400GMT. and so does the buffer size, and the TP RR, as long as it is relative large than 1.
The good news is writing an EA is simple, I'd rather write a simple EA to debug it.
1. box begin time, which 4 H1 candle?
2. buffer size
3. TP size 2X? 3X ....10X
If the system is really work, then the parameter can vary, but the overall system will be profit after a relative large sample size(at least 100 weeks)
It does not matter use 2100-100 GMT or 2200-200GMT or 00-400GMT. and so does the buffer size, and the TP RR, as long as it is relative large than 1.
quote]
I've been trading breakout systems for more than four years, now. No disrespect, but IMHO the system parameters are critical to the success of this strategy. Any variance to Ace's formula can and will result in drastically different results. If you make adjustments to this strategy, you are embarking on a different course...be it better or worse.
They're all profitable, i've tested them all. I focus on GBP/JPY and EUR/JPY because they make the most. The other pairs make about 1/3 as much as GBP/JPY.
Ignored
The Gbp/Jpy is a beast, isn't it? I will say this though: the other pairs may NET less, but the entry bar is usually smaller as well. So the results on a good week are still probably 3x or so.
1. box begin time, which 4 H1 candle?
2. buffer size
3. TP size 2X? 3X ....10X
If the system is really work, then the parameter can vary, but the overall system will be profit after a relative large sample size(at least 100 weeks)
It does not matter use 2100-100 GMT or 2200-200GMT or 00-400GMT. and so does the buffer size, and the TP RR, as long as it is relative large than 1.
quote]
I've been trading breakout systems for more than four years, now....
Ignored
I agree with Bobcat to a point. The system works well as designed and those were the original parameters introduced and out of habit, we assume those are the most profitable parameters. However, if Aidans can develop an EA, alter the parameters (doesn't matter to what, the point is that a variable or multiple variables are adjusted in order to extract more profit) back test and prove that there is a more profitable way, than why not?
When systems are introduced it does not mean that they are final. I understand where you are coming from, Bobcat. But again, if one where to be able to prove that there is a better way...you see what I'm saying here I'm sure.
And as an example, when Ace introduced this system, I backtested 2.5 yrs worth of data and got very excited with what I saw. One thing I tested for was entering two positions: each position was worth 1% and one position would be taken off at 3x risk and the other would run till the end of the week. I was very pleased with the results. BUT than I thought why not let the full 2% run till the end of the week without taking any partial profit. The results were even better. On weeks where the total pips were relatively small, i.e, 300-400 pips, the difference was not that big. But the weeks were there were 5, 6, or 700 pips or more, that's what made the difference. And over the course of 2.5 yrs, the net difference was huge.
Sorry about the rant. This is not an attack. All I'm saying is that before we become complacent and simply sit back and let something work out the way it was introduced, let's think about things a bit and see if there is a viable way we can improve it. I'm sure Ace and others would agree. But testing is crucial. No sense in implementing something without expectations.
Hey...no offense taken. Your make a sound argument. However...you may have misunderstood my intent. I was not disavowing making changes in the trading strategy.
I was attempting to convey that changes to the strategy can and will make significant changes in the end results...that's all. If the box time frame, currency pairs traded, SL and TP, entry buffers are changed, I guarantee your results will vary...and probably for the worse if they are wide-sweeping changes.
The point I was trying to make was reinforced by your testing results. Thanks for your contribution.
BTW, I made +320 pips this week implicitly following Ace's formula...kinda speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Looking at Ace's chart, his "first" candle (on which everything else for the week is based) has different values to mine.
My candle (which on my chart is 2000 Sunday to 0000) has the following values: (open) = 158.77, (high) = 158.85, (low) = 158.02, (close) = 158.33.
My preceeding and following candles look even less like Ace's. Admittedly Ace's chart doesn't actually show the OHLC, but I'm sure the values are different.
Quoting Bobcat2;2828034<br />
<br />
I've been trading breakout systems for more than four years, now. No disrespect, but IMHO the system parameters are [I
Disliked
critical [/i]to the success of this strategy. Any variance to Ace's formula can and will result in drastically different results. If you make adjustments to this strategy, you are embarking on a different course...be it better or worse.
Hey...no offense taken. Your make a sound argument. However...you may have misunderstood my intent. I was not disavowing making changes in the trading strategy.
I was attempting to convey that changes to the strategy can and will make significant changes in the end results...that's all. If the box time frame, currency pairs traded, SL and TP, entry buffers are changed, I guarantee your results will vary...and probably for the worse if they are wide-sweeping changes.
The point I was trying to make was reinforced by your testing...
Ignored
Hey Bobcat-
I totally understand where you are coming from now. I may have slightly misunderstood. And I agree with you in that the strategy is quite sound the way it is. Well done with capturing 320 (pound/yen, I assume).
And to answer your previous post about which pairs I trade...mostly GBPJPY but I also did AUD/JPY this week. I don't follow the take profit method of 2x, 3x. I might if I enter with multiple pairs. The reason being is that during my back testing I found that in doing so, you remove the chance of capturing really big moves. The risk, like this week, is that you might get stopped at BE and forgo (spelling?) the 300+. But I've found that when the pair is decisive about moving, it will go in that direction and you will not get stopped out at BE (which I set after 100 pips profit).
Also, I found that if the pair is up over 500 or so pips, I will start to think about moving my stop to a positive value. In these cases I observed that if price starts returning hard, it will probably reverse. But again, the trends that run for the weekly duration will rarely turn around and retrace so strongly that you risk giving up serious pips. This really is a great strategy to catch a potential big move which is how I'm trying to trade it. But I think if I enter multiple pairs, I will take profits at 2x or 3x for the other pairs (or at least trail the stop) and let the "BEAST", aka gbp/jpy run till it's exhausted itself.
