Finally I'm profitable - I need help coding the EA - Willing to share the strategy | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Any coding expert here willing to help for free? 0 replies

Share whatever you are willing to share 27 replies

This simple EA should be profitable - help coding it 5 replies

Long term winning strategy - willing to share it 3 replies

Need help coding reverse strategy of this EA 0 replies

Attachments: Finally I'm profitable - I need help coding the EA - Willing to share the strategy
Exit Attachments

Finally I'm profitable - I need help coding the EA - Willing to share the strategy

  • #1
  • First Post: Jan 26, 2011 10:15am Jan 26, 2011 10:15am
I'm finally profitable after close to 2 years of trading. Kindly help me create the EA, and I'll be willing to share the settings of the system.

The system has very small consistent gains, but it is stable. It is a grid martingale strategy. Large funds and much patience is needed. This system might not be suitable for some traders.

Please send me a private message if you are a good coder and are interested. Thank you.
  • #2
  • Jan 26, 2011 10:51am Jan 26, 2011 10:51am
Hi,

Let me know the details. I will be willing to code mql.

cheers
BSM
  • #3
  • Jan 27, 2011 7:51am Jan 27, 2011 7:51am
Okay mine is also martingale strategy...
All I want is a system that opens a trade with a SL and TP both at 5pips...
And obviously if the trade is lost, an immediate trade in the same direction with double the lot. But here is what I want extra, I only want the EA to start trading when it would have lost 5trades in a row. So I want the EA to keep track of pips in each direction and as soon as it would have lost 5 trades then only start trading. If it helps, my broker's spread is 1.1pips. So each lost trade means that the price would have gone 3.9pips in the ''wrong'' direction for one to lose the trade. Also I want the first lot to be 0.01 (I will change it myself later on) and I only want it to double the lot 10 times...

Just to give you an example, if I would have made only buy trades one after another and then lose 5 consecutive trades, I want the EA to put the first buy trade in, if the trade won - wait until another 5 consecutive losses would have happened then trade again. If trade was lost - buy immediately again with double lots until won or until all 10 trades have been used... And same with sell trades...

It would be much appreciated if you could code this EA for me please.

Thanks
Dan
  • #4
  • Jun 5, 2011 11:50am Jun 5, 2011 11:50am
Quoting Danru
Okay mine is also martingale strategy...
All I want is a system that opens a trade with a SL and TP both at 5pips...
And obviously if the trade is lost, an immediate trade in the same direction with double the lot. But here is what I want extra, I only want the EA to start trading when it would have lost 5trades in a row. So I want the EA to keep track of pips in each direction and as soon as it would have lost 5 trades then only start trading. If it helps, my broker's spread is 1.1pips. So each lost trade means that the price would have gone...
Hi

A very valid strategy i would say. Worth to be put into an EA.
  • #5
  • Jun 5, 2011 3:00pm Jun 5, 2011 3:00pm
Quoting RandomGamble
Hi

A very valid strategy i would say. Worth to be put into an EA.
With respect, I disagree. Here's why:

If price moves 19.5 (= 5 x 3.9) pips in one direction, the EA places a trade, size 0.01 lots, anticipating a reversal. If price now moves a further 39 (= 10 x 3.9) pips in that direction, without a 6.1 pip (i.e. 5 pip + spread) reversal along the way, the 10 consecutive losses now mean that the account is now down 10.23 lots x 5 pips x $10 per pip = $511.50, and it will need 1,023 consecutive wins of 50 cents (i.e. 0.01 lots x 5 pips x $10 per pip) just to return to breakeven.

Even if I've misunderstood the details of Dan's strategy, martingale is always a guaranteed loser, if you play it for long enough. If it were possible to win with martingale, the big banks and funds would use it.
  • #6
  • Jun 7, 2011 4:53pm Jun 7, 2011 4:53pm
we program and optimise what ever you like
optimisation on solid back test data not metaquotes
data derived from the banks more than 90% in modeling back testing

e-mail [email protected]
  • #7
  • Jun 7, 2011 6:54pm Jun 7, 2011 6:54pm
I say its a nice strategy to trade manually than making an EA and losing your pocket.
The only automation I trust of are Take Profit and Stop loss settings on a trading account.
  • #8
  • Jun 8, 2011 1:15am Jun 8, 2011 1:15am
Quoting hanover
With respect, I disagree. Here's why:

If price moves 19.5 (= 5 x 3.9) pips in one direction, the EA places a trade, size 0.01 lots, anticipating a reversal. If price now moves a further 39 (= 10 x 3.9) pips in that direction, without a 6.1 pip (i.e. 5 pip + spread) reversal along the way, the 10 consecutive losses now mean that the account is now down 10.23 lots x 5 pips x $10 per pip = $511.50, and it will need 1,023 consecutive wins of 50 cents (i.e. 0.01 lots x 5 pips x $10 per pip) just to return to breakeven.

Even if I've misunderstood...
I am convinced that big banks are using martingale. Why wouldn't they? They have the money to do it. Take the GBPUSD. Place martingale orders 20 pips apart. With deep pockets ( like banks) it would be difficult to clean out a big account.
if you place reverse martingale with your normal martingale trades you cannot go wrong. You take profit in the direction of the market. You are always fully hedged. You take profit at major R/S with the hedge martingale( direction of trend) and only a small pullback at that R/S will give you breakeven with the martingale trades.
Somewhere someone is having success with martingale.
The market ALWAYS gives at least that 20 pip pullback on major R/S.
Big banks can afford to martingale! And i am sure they do it.
  • #9
  • Jun 8, 2011 2:18am Jun 8, 2011 2:18am
Quoting RandomGamble
I am convinced that big banks are using martingale. Why wouldn't they? They have the money to do it. Take the GBPUSD. Place martingale orders 20 pips apart. With deep pockets ( like banks) it would be difficult to clean out a big account.
if you place reverse martingale with your normal martingale trades you cannot go wrong. You take profit in the direction of the market. You are always fully hedged. You take profit at major R/S with the hedge martingale( direction of trend) and only a small pullback at that R/S will give you breakeven with the...
i agree. my summary of fti's method is that it itself is just another spin on martingaling. when you have unlimited funds then you have no money risk, only time risk.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #10
  • Jun 8, 2011 3:05am Jun 8, 2011 3:05am
Quoting RandomGamble
I am convinced that big banks are using martingale.
What hard evidence do you have to support your claim? Have you ever worked as a big bank trader, or do you know somebody who has?

IMO all the obvious evidence is against banks using martingale based MM. Because if martingale delivered long-term profit within the framework of what constitutes legitimate corporate risk, they'd have no need to employ analysts, strategists, traders, and so forth. They could simply run automated systems that merely double up every 20 (or whatever) pips, just like you're describing.

It's not a question of having deep pockets, it's about percent ROE. Sure, if I have something in the ballpark of a billion dollars, and trade microlots, then my account can survive a great many losing doubles, but the return on my investment is going to be utterly negligible.

If by hedging, you mean placing buy and sell orders simultaneously in the same pair, then that in itself is not a strategy, because any such hedge can be replicated pip-for-pip by simply adding to, or subtracting from, a single net position.

That brings us to another reason why savvy traders don't martingale. They know that it's fairly easy to show mathematically that MM in itself can never provide an edge.

If your idea of combining martingale with reverse martingale "cannot go wrong", then why doesn't everybody use it? It would be easily enough to implement it.

You say that "Somewhere someone is having success with martingale". Of course they are. In fact everyone who uses it is guaranteed success, because Martingale's built-in recovery system ensures that the account will always return to breakeven+1, no matter what technical (or otherwise) strategy is being used, .......... that is, until the sequence of trades occurs that quickly and unexpectedly causes irretrievable drawdown.

You say that "the market ALWAYS gives at least that 20 pip pullback on major R/S." My friend, NOTHING is guaranteed with the markets. It only takes one very large order, or black swan-type event, to defeat even the 'very best' technical strategy. Sorry to sound condescending, but if you trade for long enough, you'll come to realize this. And martingale-type systems, with their complete disregard for any kind of risk management, are the most vulnerable to these kind of events.

Don't get me wrong. It is very possible to make money long term in FX. A very handsome, exponentially growing income. But that can come only from having a real edge; sound, conservative MM; and consistent execution.

Re martingale, I'd be DELIGHTED to be proved wrong. Show me a mechanical system that delivers fairly consistent profit (and at least 50% ROE annually) with zero risk, and I'll happily pay $100k for it. I'm not joking. But of course I'd want to know a lot about the system first, and see an audited track record over several hundred trades, and many years of changing markets. And a much longer track record if the MM involves some kind of martingale, because of the high statistical error involved in attempting to gauge the probability of extremely rare events occurring.
  • #11
  • Jun 8, 2011 3:22am Jun 8, 2011 3:22am
Quoting hanover
What hard evidence do you have to support your claim? Have you ever worked as a big bank trader, or do you know somebody who has?

IMO all the obvious evidence is against banks using martingale based MM. Because if martingale delivered long-term profit within the framework of what constitutes legitimate corporate risk, they'd have no need to employ analysts, strategists, traders, and so forth. They could simply run automated systems that merely double up every 20 (or whatever) pips, just like you're describing.

It's not a question of having deep...
I have absolutely no desire to proof anything to you nor do i have the time to do so.
A couple of months ago i traded a 25000 $ demo acc to just over $300 000 in two months time with martingale. If i continued the acc would be a couple of million dollars strong now. Once it reaches a million dollars and i do not overleverage it, basically trading with almost the same lot sizes i have started with , then it is IMpossible to wipe the acc anymore due to size of the acc. my findings are based on the way i apply martingale and historical data. The market never ever takes of in a straight line for an indefinite period of time without a small retracement.

Currently i do not trade like that because i do not have the funds to back me up. I scalp and are very good at it. If i do have more risk capital i WILL surely martingale.
  • #12
  • Jun 8, 2011 3:32am Jun 8, 2011 3:32am
hanover, like i explained elsewhere and mentioned above... the reason to bother doing any analysis instead of just randomly picking directions to trade is because of time at risk.

when you have unlimited funds (real or imaginary) then money isn't the risk. time not being in profit is the risk. if someone has unlimited (virtual or real) funds then awesome, but no one under any circumstances has unlimited time. therefore, analysis to try and be right is worthwhile in this respect on not losing time risked. money is just the tool to get to profit.

as they say, "time is money".
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #13
  • Jun 8, 2011 3:59am Jun 8, 2011 3:59am
Quoting RandomGamble
I have absolutely no desire to proof anything to you nor do i have the time to do so. ......
It doesn't surprise me that you've traded with great success using martingale. As I said, martingale guarantees consistent profit because of its recovery method. But if/when it breaks down completely, the results are catastrophic. The risk is that you never know if/when this will happen. It could have broken down before you reached 300k.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that you've found something that can't possibly fail. I won't attempt to argue, I'll just wish you the best of luck.
  • #14
  • Jun 8, 2011 4:01am Jun 8, 2011 4:01am
research show that adding in a position it is more profitable
simply because you enter with small amount and you increase
when the market moves at your favor

All large finance institutions using algorithms for they trading
because if your system is profitable so consistency its what it matters
  • #15
  • Jun 8, 2011 4:09am Jun 8, 2011 4:09am
Quoting tranco
research show that adding in a position it is more profitable
simply because you enter with small amount and you increase
when the market moves at your favor

All large finance institutions using algorithms for they trading
because if your system is profitable so consistency its what it matters
dude, martingale is not the same as pyramiding.

martingale adds risk and removes reward. pyramiding adds reward and removes risk.
Congratulations ScalaFX for coming out of the closet!
  • #16
  • Jun 8, 2011 4:12am Jun 8, 2011 4:12am
Hanover

In post 8 there are some things i posted which you chose to comment on and i feel you did not understand exactly what i was talking about. I refer to the hedging thing.

I respect your mathematical way of explaining things. Maths is not my strong point.
Martingale however has many applications. Some of which i think has a place in trading these markets. MM can even be applied to martingale.

Respect and good luck to you too.
  • #17
  • Jun 8, 2011 4:55am Jun 8, 2011 4:55am
Quoting RandomGamble
Hanover

In post 8 there are some things i posted which you chose to comment on and i feel you did not understand exactly what i was talking about. I refer to the hedging thing.

I respect your mathematical way of explaining things. Maths is not my strong point.
Martingale however has many applications. Some of which i think has a place in trading these markets. MM can even be applied to martingale.

Respect and good luck to you too.
RG,

Agree with you. There's little profit to be gained in debating semantics on forums, especially as everybody thinks differently. I'm happy enough with the way I trade, and it sounds like you're in the same position. If it works profitably, just rinse and repeat. My best wishes to you also.

David
  • #18
  • Jun 8, 2011 5:10am Jun 8, 2011 5:10am
Money management is what matters
And here is different opinions about martingale what is yours?
1.Martingale by let your position run against you for some period up to recover again?
2.Or by averaging loosing positions?
I will not consider the 1st one martingale with solid money management even 100 pips minus
But i will consider the 2nd one aggressive martingale even with 5 pips minus
ENTER SMALL EXIT BIG that’s the success
  • #19
  • Jun 8, 2011 6:43pm Jun 8, 2011 6:43pm
Quoting RandomGamble
Hanover

In post 8 there are some things i posted which you chose to comment on and i feel you did not understand exactly what i was talking about. I refer to the hedging thing.
RG,

I've just re-read your post #8 several times, and you're right: I don't understand.

"if you place reverse martingale with your normal martingale trades you cannot go wrong. You take profit in the direction of the market. You are always fully hedged. You take profit at major R/S with the hedge martingale( direction of trend) and only a small pullback at that R/S will give you breakeven with the martingale trades."

You say that you're "always fully hedged". I assume that means you are X lots long in a pair, and also (simultaneously) X lots short. Doesn't that mean that no matter which way price moves, the pips gained on one position is exactly balanced by the pips lost in the other, therefore the net effect is zero? In other words, the hedge can be replicated by simply being out of the market (and even better, paying no spread). Hence I don't see how anybody could be profitable by being "fully hedged".

The only way I can see it as being (potentially) profitable is when you close one side of the hedge, or increase the other side so that the two positions no longer cancel each other out. Then you are exposed to either profit or loss, but in exactly the same way an unhedged trader would be, with a single position. Hence I can not see how the hedging in itself provides an edge.

I think our idea of what is "martingale" and "reverse martingale" are possibly different. I understand "martingale" as doubling the bet/position size with each loss, and then reverting to 1 unit as soon as a win occurs (returning the account balance to the point it was, plus 1 unit, before the sequence of consecutive losses). Hence martingale can never lose, no matter what technical strategy is used, because of this recovery system, and as long as there are infinite funds in the account to allow unlimited doubling.

And I understand "reverse martingale" to mean doubling following each win, and reverting to 1 unit following a loss.

"You take profit at major R/S with the hedge martingale( direction of trend) and only a small pullback at that R/S will give you breakeven with the martingale trades."

So you have two martingales, one doubling every time price moves X pips south, and another doubling every time price moves X pips north? Let's say that the trend direction is up. Hence one martingale takes profit at this point, while the other counts on a small pullback to recover its accumulated losses? I just can't get my head around that.


Finally, it's my understanding that big banks and funds must operate according to a strict set of rules regarding risk management, and that any MM system that left them open to potentially unlimited loss would be illegal. (We know what happened to Nick Leeson and Barings Bank, for example).

I just can't bring myself to believe that there's a system out there that allows consistent profit for absolutely zero risk, except perhaps some kind of arbitrage opportunity that (for example) exploits imbalances between multiple price feeds, or (another example) collects swap interest on one account while losing nothing on a swap-free account. But I don't see how any staking/sizing system can in itself deliver an edge. All casinos stake their existence on this bulletproof premise. And with trading, I can't see any way of being profitable, apart from being net long when price is rising, and net short when it's falling, on-balance frequently and/or heavily enough to overcome costs.

Having said this, I must admit that I'm very curious. Thanks for any clarification.

David
  • #20
  • Jun 8, 2011 6:45pm Jun 8, 2011 6:45pm
Quoting tranco
Money management is what matters
And here is different opinions about martingale what is yours?
1.Martingale by let your position run against you for some period up to recover again?
2.Or by averaging loosing positions?
I will not consider the 1st one martingale with solid money management even 100 pips minus
But i will consider the 2nd one aggressive martingale even with 5 pips minus
ENTER SMALL EXIT BIG that’s the success
I think you mean "trade management" (exits) rather than "money management" (system for sizing positions)?
0 traders viewing now