Almost ready EA, code works for BUY orders, but not SELL orders | Forex Factory

Options

Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Difference between buy/sell stops & buy/sell limits 34 replies

Difference between buy limit, sell limit, buy stop, & sell stop? 4 replies

how to change buy to sell, sell to buy for EA 1 reply

the buy/buy or sell/sell currency broker?? 5 replies

I am looking for EA to put Buy Stops, Buy limits, Sell limits, and Sell Stops. I will 0 replies

Almost ready EA, code works for BUY orders, but not SELL orders

  • #1
  • First Post: Edited 6:03pm Nov 24, 2009 4:20pm | Edited 6:03pm
Hi all.

I am new on this forum, but not new to manual trading and EA's. I am pleased to see the activity on ForexFactory and looking forward to get to know you better.

I am just about ready with my little simple EA, but stuck on coding the SL ordermodify for SHORT trades.

What I'm trying to accomplish is this;
When price reaches 20pips profit: adjust SL from -40pip to -20pips. (cut SL in half)
When price reaches 40pips profit: Trailingstop kicks in. (Breake even + +)

This works perfectly well for LONG positions, but not for SHORT positions.
If anyone can spot an obvious error/solution, I'd be forever grateful.

Here's the code :

Inserted Code
 
double newSL;
{
if((Bid-OrderOpenPrice())>=200*Point) newSL=OrderOpenPrice()-200*Point;
if((Bid-OrderOpenPrice())>=400*Point) newSL=Bid-(TrailingStop*Point);
{
newSL=NormalizeDouble(newSL,Digits);
if(newSL>OrderStopLoss()) OrderModify(OrderTicket(),OrderOpenPrice(),newSL,OrderTakeProfit(),0,Green);
return(0);
}
}
}
else // go to short position
{ 
if((OrderOpenPrice()-Ask)>=200*Point) newSL=OrderOpenPrice()+200*Point;
if((OrderOpenPrice()-Ask)>=400*Point) newSL=(TrailingStop*Point)+Ask;
{ 
newSL=NormalizeDouble(newSL,Digits);
if(newSL<OrderStopLoss() || OrderStopLoss()==0) OrderModify(OrderTicket(),OrderOpenPrice(),newSL,OrderTakeProfit(),0,Red);
return(0);
}
}
}

Thank you in advance,
Oddvin
  • #2
  • Nov 24, 2009 5:16pm Nov 24, 2009 5:16pm
Quoting enterfx
if((OrderOpenPrice()-Ask)>=200*Point) newSL=OrderOpenPrice()+200*Point;
if((OrderOpenPrice()-Ask)>=400*Point) newSL=(TrailingStop*Point)+Ask;
{
newSL=NormalizeDouble(newSL2,Digits);
if(newSL<OrderStopLoss() || OrderStopLoss()==0) OrderModify(OrderTicket(),OrderOpenPrice(),newSL,OrderTakeProfit(),0,Red);
return(0);
}
Maybe this is a typo and must be like this:
Inserted Code
newSL=NormalizeDouble([color="Red"]newSL[/color],Digits);

PS: Please wrap your code into CODE tags when posting here in the forum to preserve the formatting. Furthermore it is always considered bad style (bad readybility) to use the short form for one-line if constructs. Although it is allowed to leave the braces away you should always do readers of your code a favor and consistently use the long syntax.
  • #3
  • Nov 24, 2009 5:57pm Nov 24, 2009 5:57pm
7bit, thank you for your observation. Unfortunately, it was a typo in my post, but not the reason for the SELL ordermodify error.

What is happening is quite strange; as soon as a SELL order is opened (with correct S/L), it modifies and removes the S/L entirely. When price reaches the first target (+20pip) in my favour, it adds a new S/L and when price goes bacwards, it removes the S/L again.

As to your other comment, I'm quite new to coding and also forex forums, so please excuse me if I am not following common forum ethics. Do you mean that I should post the entire EA code?

Thanks for your kind help.
  • #4
  • Nov 24, 2009 6:40pm Nov 24, 2009 6:40pm
Quoting enterfx
Do you mean that I should post the entire EA code?

Thanks for your kind help.
The goal is enabling you to sucessfully debug this problem. First you should learn to make extensive use of the Print() function, this is your most important friend when it comes to debugging.

Go through your code as if you were the computer (where you think the computer would go when following the code) and print at every step every variable that may have any influence to make sure the computer does indeed exactly what you think it would do.

Make it so that it literally tells you what exactly it is doing and what is going on and when it executes, this will quickly show you where the problem is.

Inserted Code
Print("entered second if branch.");

Print("Order has this SL: ", OrderStopLoss());

Print("newSL now has this value: ", newSL);

Print("calling OrderModify() with these values:" newSL, ..., ...);
  • #5
  • Edited 11:56am Nov 25, 2009 11:54am | Edited 11:56am
Thanks for your tips and inputs.

I played with some tweakings to no use and almost gave in lol. Then I realized that the ea initially recognized the newSL value (for SELL orders) as zero, thus instantly modified the order with no SL.

After I put this simple line on top: newSL=OrderStopLoss(); , the problem disappeared. I even managed to implement TrailingStep into the code. No big thing, but for a newbie coder like me it's a great achievement and very useful:-)

NEW CODE:

Inserted Code
 
else // go to short position
{ 
newSL=OrderStopLoss();
if((OrderOpenPrice()-Ask)>200*Point) newSL=OrderOpenPrice()+(200*Point);
if((OrderOpenPrice()-Ask)>400*Point) newSL=Ask+(Point*TrailingStop);
{ 
newSL=NormalizeDouble(newSL,Digits);
if(((OrderStopLoss()-(TrailingStep*Point))>newSL)  || (OrderStopLoss()==0))
OrderModify(OrderTicket(),OrderOpenPrice(),newSL,OrderTakeProfit(),0,Red);
return(0);


I don't know why this is required for Sell orders only, but seem to work seamlessly.
  • #6
  • Nov 25, 2009 1:08pm Nov 25, 2009 1:08pm
Quoting enterfx

I don't know why this is required for Sell orders only, but seem to work seamlessly.
because a stop loss of 0 means no stop loss. And when comparing current price with current stop loss then 0 would always be smaller than the price for buy orders, but when you have a sell order then 0 would mean the stop is completely on the *other* side (already trailed too far), so it would never trail it. You need to handle the 0 separately for sell orders, for buy orders the 0 is already on the right side of the trade.

I didn't see it when looking at your code, although i have had this problem myself some months ago. I solved it once and forever in my library of commonly used functions and since then never had to think about it anymore.
  • #7
  • Last Post: Nov 25, 2009 2:06pm Nov 25, 2009 2:06pm
You are of course right. It just make sense when I think through it. pretty great feeling to have it solved.
0 traders viewing now