As I just said! Two days of forward testing doesn't mean nothing!
On the other hand, Martingale can make the difference, if you select max lots 0.64, you can lose only if you have 7 losses in a row!But, again, just TEST it!
Trumpcard: a candlestick closing price breakout EA by SteveHopwood
I've said it here before, M scares the cr@p out of me and I would never consider a method that relies on escalation to get you out of trouble. It's one thing in testing but when real money's involved ... well it's your cojones on the line! In my experience those 7 in a row always turn out to be a little less rare than you expect!
I don't say
- #63
- Oct 15, 2011 4:42pm Oct 15, 2011 4:42pm
- | Commercial User | Joined Apr 2007 | 8,331 Posts
Given the high win/loss rate of the bot, I've have took the liberty to add to it a Martingale sequence, from Steve's Spider. Hope you don't mind, Steve!
Here is hoping for success.
- #68
- Oct 17, 2011 3:05pm Oct 17, 2011 3:05pm
- | Commercial User | Joined Apr 2007 | 8,331 Posts
Dear Trumpcard,
Yes, it takes into account all 3 previous closes. But, please note, that there is still an issue with the inside bar check in the source code:
It should be:Inserted Code//No cancellation if the previous bar was an IB if (High[1] <= High[2] && Low[1] <= Low[2] ) return;
Inserted Code//No cancellation if the previous bar was an IB if (High[1] <= High[2] && Low[1] >= Low[2] ) return;
Fix in post 1.
- #75
- Oct 30, 2011 7:08am Oct 30, 2011 7:08am
- | Commercial User | Joined Apr 2007 | 8,331 Posts
Latest update in post 1. TC has been Hanovered.
I took a look at the code and I believe a fix can be achieved by adding a call to an existing procedure.
In the start() procedure, there is a section of code where it checks to see if we are in valid trading times. That code is:
If you add a call to the procedure DeletePendingPriceLines() right before the "return" statement, it should do the trick. The new code would look like this:
There is still a very small chance that the first tick coming in at 10am could trigger a pending trade since that code is before the time check, but if the planets are that aligned perhaps you should take the trade.
I'll leave it to Steve to reorganize the code if he thinks it's worthwhile.
George
In the start() procedure, there is a section of code where it checks to see if we are in valid trading times. That code is:
Inserted Code
//Trading times
bool TradeTimeOk = CheckTradingTimes();
if (!TradeTimeOk)
{
Comment("Outside trading hoursnstart_hourm-end_hourm: ", start_hourm, "-",end_hourm, "nstart_houre-end_houre: ", start_houre, "-",end_houre);
return;
}//if (hour < start_hourm) If you add a call to the procedure DeletePendingPriceLines() right before the "return" statement, it should do the trick. The new code would look like this:
Inserted Code
//Trading times
bool TradeTimeOk = CheckTradingTimes();
if (!TradeTimeOk)
{
Comment("Outside trading hoursnstart_hourm-end_hourm: ", start_hourm, "-",end_hourm, "nstart_houre-end_houre: ", start_houre, "-",end_houre);
DeletePendingPriceLines();
return;
}//if (hour < start_hourm) There is still a very small chance that the first tick coming in at 10am could trigger a pending trade since that code is before the time check, but if the planets are that aligned perhaps you should take the trade.
I'll leave it to Steve to reorganize the code if he thinks it's worthwhile.George
I am now trying to avoid trading from 10am to 1pm, as the win/loss ratio during that period was unacceptable....
- #78
- Edited 6:00pm Nov 9, 2011 3:53pm | Edited 6:00pm
- | Commercial User | Joined Apr 2007 | 8,331 Posts
There is still a very small chance that the first tick coming in at 10am could trigger a pending trade since that code is before the time check, but if the planets are that aligned perhaps you should take the trade.
George
George, this is yet another brilliant piece of bloop-spotting. You have been an FF member since 2006, yet this is only your 7th post. Where have you been? What have you been doing? In my experience of your posts, you are brilliant.
Guys, it might seem premature that I have vouched for George, given his posting record. He may be a rubbish trader for all I know.
I can say this: reading another programmer's code is stupidly difficult. Any guy who manages to read mine and is able to offer corrections and is so obviously intent on being helpful, gets my vote. George is a star and you should take advice in his posts seriously.
Steve,
Thanks for the kind words. With that kind of encouragement you probably won't be able to get me to shut up now.
George
Thanks for the kind words. With that kind of encouragement you probably won't be able to get me to shut up now.
George
Hehe. I neither remember nor care what this robot does, but better correct than incorrect code whatever the circumstances. Update in post 1.
George, this is yet another brilliant piece of bloop-spotting. You have been an FF member since 2006, yet this is only your 7th post. Where have you been? What have you been doing? In my experience of your posts, you are brilliant.
Guys, it might seem premature that I have vouched for George, given his posting record. He may be a rubbish trader for all I know.
I can say this: reading another programmer's...
- #80
- Nov 9, 2011 6:02pm Nov 9, 2011 6:02pm
- | Commercial User | Joined Apr 2007 | 8,331 Posts
Steve,
With that kind of encouragement you probably won't be able to get me to shut up now.