100% Win Math Grid Ea | Page 39 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Grid - New indicator that replaces chart grid 60 replies

Grid (not grid system) or horizontal lines indicator 6 replies

100% win grid EA 45 replies

Grid, Burst Grid, Grid Risk and Grid Profit 1 reply

Double Time Grid and Pip Grid 0 replies

Attachments: 100% Win Math Grid Ea
Exit Attachments

100% Win Math Grid Ea

  • #761
  • Nov 7, 2009 10:41am Nov 7, 2009 10:41am
I see, Ozzie. So its a dollar amount, not a pip amount. I honestly would prefer using pips since some pairs don't have a pip equal to $10.

There is probably some formula to substitute in so that it uses pips instead of dollar value. There is probably a way to make this a user defined setting in the EA. So, if the increment is say 20 pips, one could choose to take profit after 10 pips of profit...
  • #762
  • Nov 7, 2009 10:55am Nov 7, 2009 10:55am
Here is the report and set file for this weeks demo trades, remove the .txt from the set file.

Attached File(s)
File Type: doc DetailedStatement.doc   279 KB | 1,195 downloads


Attached File(s)
File Type: txt grid_m15.set.txt   2 KB | 683 downloads
  • #763
  • Nov 7, 2009 1:35pm Nov 7, 2009 1:35pm
I am not much for codeing in MT4 but would the following work?
Create an extern double and put it under Money Management and Risk Control.

extern double MaxOpenCount = 12;

Then place the following, all one line, just before // Check high-water mark

if( tradeProfit > 1 && totalOpenOrderCount >= MaxOpenCount ) endSession();

By creating the MaxOpenCount input you could test it at various totalOpenOrderCount by entering your own value, it defaults to 12.
When the trade has a profit greater than one and it goes to or past your set number for MaxOpenCount it will endSession, but it will not end until it has at least a profit greater than 1 even if its gone past your MaxOpenCount.

My thinking may be off, but will something like this work, I have not studied the code so I could be doing it wrong.

Thanks
Gene
  • #764
  • Nov 7, 2009 7:06pm Nov 7, 2009 7:06pm
has anyone had success with changing take profit levels for buy level one and sell level one? like maybe tp/sl for buy or sell level one would be buy or sell level 2 or 3 instead of regular tp/sl on grid? the math would be different but it may also cut out some used margin...thoughts anyone?
  • #765
  • Nov 7, 2009 11:22pm Nov 7, 2009 11:22pm
Quoting plasmapants
Viper, in the orignal settings, tp is calculated at 4*increment (if you have 3 levels). When we are using the extend tp we add say 5 pips to that.

Is the profit formula using the extended tp level to determine profitability, or is it using the original tp level to determine profitability?

(Is my profit going to be more because i extended the tp, or is my profit going to be the same, but the more i extend tp the less positions the ea will open (because we're allowing the price to travel further to hit tp))
To compute current profitability, the code uses the actual tp submitted to the broker. So if you extend the tp, it will use that. I haven't thought or worked out the numbers to see how that affects overall profit.

Viper
  • #766
  • Nov 8, 2009 5:59pm Nov 8, 2009 5:59pm
orderreliable not being reliable in v2.4

testing ey with 22 pip inc x 3 levels.
Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: ey108.gif Size: 18 KB
bull in a china shop
  • #767
  • Nov 9, 2009 8:40am Nov 9, 2009 8:40am
I've run a couple more tests using v2.4 on ey and the same problem hasn't shown up. I'll keep watching to see what happens during volatile pa.
bull in a china shop
  • #768
  • Nov 9, 2009 6:12pm Nov 9, 2009 6:12pm
First, let me say that I have read at least 80% of this thread. Possibly more.

And now I have a question for the experts here. What happens if there is a variable that allows for a set number of open trades, but different from what magicchance suggested. It would go like this... say the number is 20 (but it could be anything you want)... so when trade #21 is opened trade #1 --if it's in DD -- gets closed out at the same time, keeping the number of live trades to 20, the number you had selected. This cycle would repeat each time a new live trade starts, but only deleting older trades that are in DD.

So I'm wondering if this would advance the system at all? Anyone?
  • #769
  • Nov 9, 2009 7:51pm Nov 9, 2009 7:51pm
[quote=asterixx;3219535]
And now I have a question for the experts here. What happens if there is a variable that allows for a set number of open trades, but different from what magicchance suggested. It would go like this... say the number is 20 (but it could be anything you want)... so when trade #21 is opened trade #1 --if it's in DD -- gets closed out at the same time, keeping the number of live trades to 20, the number you had selected. This cycle would repeat each time a new live trade starts, but only deleting older trades that are in DD.
quote]

Asterixx, i think if you did this you will just end up picking up a lot of small losses along the way. They would total a lot more then what a closed set will net you by way of return.
bull in a china shop
  • #770
  • Nov 9, 2009 8:39pm Nov 9, 2009 8:39pm
I realize that my idea creates forced losses, but because the negative trades are getting closed out earlier than they would have been anyway wouldn't the losses be smaller than if left alone? If left alone it would have closed out at the end of the run with a 30 pip loss, but maybe this way it gets closed early at just -22 pips.

Not only that, but the only reason for the forced loss is that a new live trade is opening, supposedly adding to the overall positive margin. So it's not just being closed randomly, but only because it's being pushed off the rear end of the rank by a newcomer.

Doesn't this fulfill the adage "cut you losses short and let your winners run"?

My idea doesn't 'create a win', but why doesn't it help create a bigger win ratio at the end of the run while helping to keep a lower DD along the way?
  • #771
  • Edited Nov 10, 2009 12:41am Nov 9, 2009 9:14pm | Edited Nov 10, 2009 12:41am
Quoting asterixx
I realize that my idea creates forced losses, but because the negative trades are getting closed out earlier than they would have been anyway wouldn't the losses be smaller than if left alone?...
You have a point. A serious analysis needed to ensure we are going in the right direction. You have definitely given an idea to think about.
But consider a scenario if say the 21st order(pending) is a sell stop and the first order closed out is a buy and eventually the price goes down and hit sell orders TP. Hope I am making myself clear.
Thanks.
  • #772
  • Nov 10, 2009 5:24am Nov 10, 2009 5:24am
I have attached the iexposure indi.

Is it possible to modify this indi so that rather than giving a cumulative total of trades sorted by currency pair, it would give a breakdown of trades sorted by the 'comment' field. This way we can keep track of what each grid is doing when running multigrid.
Attached File(s)
File Type: mq4 iExposure.mq4   8 KB | 891 downloads
bull in a china shop
  • #773
  • Nov 10, 2009 7:56am Nov 10, 2009 7:56am
Quoting desi
...But consider a scenario if say the 21st order(pending) is a sell stop and... Thanks.
I'm not sure I understand your question. My method is to close out a live trade in heavy DD when another live trade is opened. Pending trades aren't considered in this method, just live ones.

~Only live trades are considered;

~Only one older trade goes away at a time, and only when replaced by a new one;

~Only a trade in DD is affected. No trades in profit are affected by this method.

My remaining questions have to do with which DD trades to close. Maybe it's best to simply close them in the order they were opened, but then again not. Maybe it's best to close one that matches lot sizes with the newly opened trade? I don't think time of day, or time of open, etc., will affect this method in any way, but I'm still working out the proper order of closure for best overall profit potential.
  • #774
  • Nov 10, 2009 9:48am Nov 10, 2009 9:48am
Sorry for the double post, but here are some more ideas:

Say you have the EA set for 24 and 6. So it will run normally until it has ranged to the point of wanting to open 25 live trades. At trade number 25 (one over your setting of 24), the EA will begin whittling away at any trades currently in DD, starting with the first 6 trades from when the EA first opened for business. If the ranging kept up, then after some time the EA would have closed out the first 6 trades, which also happen to be the trades with the lowest lot size, not to mention the oldest. Finally, under these rules no more than 6 (bad) trades would be closed early no matter what else might happen.

The fact that these settings are completely flexible only adds to the overall advantage of this method.

Last week there were members here with 150 or more open trades and massive DD. This simple mod can prevent that from ever happening again. The newest trades coming at the end of a long range period naturally have larger lot sizes. So we would always be replacing a smaller trade with a larger one, which already should be an advantage. Why wouldn't it be, when we are already opening so many smaller and larger trades simultaneously? How can whittling away some of the losers -- only during a long and dangerous range period -- be a bad thing?

Other possibilities: It could be programmed to only knock out the smallest pre-programmed lot size. If you start with .01 lots, then it would stop after knocking these out and let the rest run wild. Or the 2 smallest lot sizes.

Or it could be arranged by steps: Step One, 1-24 trades: Starting here it would begin closing out the smallest lot sizes. Step Two: 25-50 trades: Starting here it would begin closing out the second smallest lot sizes. And so on...

There are MANY flexible ways to approach this method. I can't see how in the big picture this can be a bad idea. Someone please help me either prove or disprove my theory.
  • #775
  • Nov 10, 2009 10:00am Nov 10, 2009 10:00am
Quoting killz808
this is what i go back from fx solutions live chat:

Due to the new NFA FIFO restriction which will be enforced on July 31, 2009, we are no longer accepting new MetaTrader applications under FX Solutions, LLC.
I use ATC (just google "ATC forex") for my live trading in the US. They are US-based but keep their customer accounts with FXCM/UK. Bottom line is I can (and do quite a lot) do hedge trading. I like them, they don't try to screw people, and their customer service is the best I've ever encountered.

=Ed=
  • #776
  • Edited 12:30pm Nov 10, 2009 12:29pm | Edited 12:30pm
Quoting asterixx
Sorry for the double post, but here are some more ideas:

Say you have the EA set for 24 and 6. So it will run normally until it has ranged to the point of wanting to open 25 live trades. At trade number 25 (one over your setting of 24), the EA will begin whittling away at any trades currently in DD, starting with the first 6 trades from when the EA first opened for business. If the ranging kept up, then after some time the EA would have closed out the first 6 trades, which also happen to be the trades with the lowest lot size, not to mention the...
this is similar to my last post only that the tp/sl for level 1 would be level 2 or level 3 to get rid of some possible whipsaw for margin protection but i think the math for this may be different (ex. for level 1 buy, the lot size must be 4 times that of its counterpart level 1 sell if level 1 sell was opened, providing you used level 2 for the tp/sl level.) i hope this was clear.
  • #777
  • Nov 11, 2009 1:48am Nov 11, 2009 1:48am
Tradingviper, I've discovered a bug you should know about. Your EA closes open trades without warning.

As you can see from my latest postings I'm interested in closing out losing trades in order to let the winners run. (I'm not sure whether this is a good strategy yet, but today I was experimenting.) So twice today on two different pairs I deleting a single trade, and when I did so the EA took this as a sign to delete ALL open trades.

Can you please look into this (and my other posts too)? Many thanx in advance!
  • #778
  • Edited 5:40am Nov 11, 2009 4:19am | Edited 5:40am
Quoting asterixx
Tradingviper, I've discovered a bug you should know about. Your EA closes open trades without warning.

As you can see from my latest postings I'm interested in closing out losing trades in order to let the winners run. (I'm not sure whether this is a good strategy yet, but today I was experimenting.) So twice today on two different pairs I deleting a single trade, and when I did so the EA took this as a sign to delete ALL open trades.

Can you please look into this (and my other posts too)? Many thanx in advance!

This is not a bug. The ea is designed to shutdown the whole sequence if one of the orders is closed. This can prevent losses if your sl get spiked by the spread widening.
bull in a china shop
  • #779
  • Nov 11, 2009 7:10am Nov 11, 2009 7:10am
Hi all,

I've read through about 30 pages of this thread and came up with about 7 EAs.

Can someone please put the final and most effective EA here please? I am after Mq4 and .ex4 file.

thanks a ton.

Cheers
  • #780
  • Nov 11, 2009 7:52am Nov 11, 2009 7:52am
Puks, its only another 22 pages to go, but if you cant wait...


Click on the paper clip icon next to page numbers for attachments.

Latest versions are viperGrid ver 2.3 (not for yen pairs) and 2.4 (all pairs).
bull in a china shop
2 traders viewing now