Disliked{quote} Almost 10:1. 4150 on original...450 on FX mod. There seems to be a huge difference here. I encourage anyone to check my numbers. Maybe later I'll do a different pair for comparison.Ignored
Simply "grid" system, no hedge, no martingale 9 replies
ECN && STP && Scalping && Hedging - Broker Review - Oct 2009 24 replies
Martingale, Reverse Martingale, Modified Martingale, Maths 1 reply
Disliked{quote} Almost 10:1. 4150 on original...450 on FX mod. There seems to be a huge difference here. I encourage anyone to check my numbers. Maybe later I'll do a different pair for comparison.Ignored
DislikedAugust 7th, 2014: MODIFIED First Batch entry (in "trend direction") AND not moving TP levels: {image} ORIGINAL First Batch entry (in original "countertrend direction") AND moving TP to Level1 after Level2 entry: {image}Ignored
DislikedDid a quick backtest on the GbpJpy for the year, again using a 50 pip grid. The original method didn't do well. Before I got half way through February I had already hit x64...so pretty much a blown account. On the modified, ended up with 5160 pips for the year. Only got up to x8 with about 1600 pips DD. Pretty impressive.Ignored
I would like to use the opportunity to emphasize that the basic strategy is KFx's idea and all credits should go to him.
Disliked{quote} FXguru, on your method, I think a x2 buy should be opened at the price hike at 1.33895.Ignored
DislikedSome "brainstorming" ideas for further experimentations: 1. First batch entry is in "trend direction": Buy: When price comes from BELOW and touch a grid level (level 1) Sell: When price comes from ABOVE and touch a grid level (level 1) Reasoning: To keep "friendship with the trend" starting from Level1 of Original Batch. (All further "H" Level entries are in "trend direction", so why not first one, too?) 2. Not moving original TP levels when Level2 and Level3 trades are activated. TP: Next level (10 pips) If the price drops 10 pips, add a buy (level...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Hi Fx. I guess it's important to add another rule: 3. Fixing rules to start the grid. As you can see in your pics, the first trade (or the first signal) can drive the grid in one direction or another. Subsequently its end and the new grid's start....and so on. So I guess we need a "trigger signal" (expecially trend trigger signal). Perhaps a simple 2 MAs cross or another one. Whato do you think about?Ignored
Disliked{quote} the strategy could be deployed even IN BOTH DIRECTIONS at the same time and let both batches run their courses.Ignored
Disliked{quote}One more "brainstorming" idea about TP: It seems that the Hedge function (esp. at x16, x32) can be a "big moneymaker", however, it is a double edged sword as these hedge levels require large margins standing by all the time (tying down funds, creating higher "exposure" and reducing % profit), so - in my opinion - the Hedge function should be used primarily as an "Exit Strategy" (as soon as possible), and not as additional "moneymaker".Ignored
Disliked{quote} (I just wonder how could you go through 7 months' worth of data so fast...)Ignored
Disliked{quote} @xlcharly You are right, a decent "starter signal" would be handy. On the other, it may not be necessary as the strategy might work equally well in both directions on the long run. Especially considering the fact that after closing a batch the strategy would immediately open a new batch at the next 00 level without looking at any further starter signal. In other words: except for the very first trade, all the rest would be almost random. One might make a decision whether the new batch should start in "microtrend" or "counter microtrend"...Ignored
Disliked{quote} mmmmm.....sounds good......totally agree! Yu say to start both strategies at the same time?Ignored
Disliked{quote} Yes, that's the idea, i.e. starting one "First Batch" in "counter microtrend" direction (as mentioned in KFx's original strategy in Post1) and another one in "microtrend" direction (as mentioned in the Modified Version). Nevertheless, it is just a "brainstorming" idea (came to mind on a lazy Sunday morning) which needs further exploration. Advantages: 1. More profits (harvesting both directions). 2. Potential "auto-hedging". The branch in DD would be partially balanced by the other branch taking profits. Disadvantages: 1. Synchronicity would...Ignored
Disliked{quote} ....trying to continue your thinking..... I've considered the worst scenario (nightmare scenario) for every grids: a narrow range market! Let's see the pics. {image} {image} in pic.1 we have up a grid with Kfx's original strategy and down your startegy. As you can see, depending as price moves in the range, one strategy can help the other or disadvantage it. But at the beginning we don't know which is the best strategy. So I guess the solution is a careful MM. In the second pic, I've pointed out a period (blue rectangles) in which the total...Ignored
Disliked{quote} Hmmm. At first look it seems overly complicated to me. I think I'd rather diversify into other pairs. However, perhaps further reflection will change my opinionIgnored
Disliked{quote} ....trying to continue your thinking..... I've considered the worst scenario (nightmare scenario) for every grids: a narrow range market! Let's see the pics. {image} {image} in pic.1 we have up a grid with Kfx's original strategy and down your startegy. As you can see, depending as price moves in the range, one strategy can help the other or disadvantage it. But at the beginning we don't know which is the best strategy. So I guess the solution is a careful MM. In the second pic, I've pointed out a period (blue rectangles) in which the total...Ignored
Disliked{quote} On August 7th, the ORIGINAL (KFx's) version has performed much better on GBP/NZD. The good news is that both versions closed the day with NET EQUITY GAIN. Running the two strategies simultaneously (without intentional attention to entry direction) would have had some balancing effect, however, each strategy would have started August 8th with -330 pips floating DD at Hx4. Not so good. Adjusting synchronicity even by EAs would be extremely difficult, so I scratch the idea of simultaneous and opposite direction entries... Just to see what would...Ignored
Disliked{quote} We should test this double grid strategy with an Ea. I'm agree with moncsicsi. And why not trying two grids (one for each strategy) shifted for 1/2 step? Example, one grid 1.9860-1.9870-1.9880.....and the other 1.9865-1.9875-1.9885.... Maybe too many points for a brainstorming!Ignored