2 levels trading without any indicators

yes agreed with madscalp, the method you post on first post and previous post is different, got confused with the calculation

I avoided to make a long first post and edited.
Now, the fix that mahuray has suggested has been posted in 1st post and every other fix that this system will need will be also added to 1st post.

Agreed.
This seems to be a somewhat hedged martingale.
It may work for a time as with other such ideas, but sooner or later it will suffer an event that will make in not viable.
This type of mathematical approach works when the conditions are fitting....but for long term success, adding to losing positions is a recipe for disaster.
Good luck.

Definition of martingale was if buy order in loss open same buy again 2x size and repeat until tp hit.
that would be : buy 0.2 / 0.4 / 0.8 / 1.6 / 3.2 / 6.4 /12.8 / 25.6

This method ads to the winning trade a position and does not double the size of the previous
That would be : buy 0.2 / 0.6 / 1.0 / 1.4
Sell 0.4 / 0.8 / 1.2 /1.6

We have same number of orders but the lot (size) is not crazy big after 10 orders, and Martingale does not work with Sl while this one does.

I ignored to reply to the post above because of his ignorance or not knowledge of basic math.
Thanks for the "good luck" .
Your post is "much appreciated"

Here my interpretation of the RSI for trend direction ...
- If the RSI is above 50 and the MA(5) on RSI increases, then trade long, etc.

Yes, classic martingale doubles the position at every determined level, but as you are probably aware, there are many variables that can be manipulated.
The position size can be increased in smaller increments. The grid size, PT's and SL's can be varied. Some martingales are open, others are capped with SL.
They can also run from 2 levels, in opposite directions as your system does, so they make profit both ways. Many people have tried, and are still trying to refine their own parameters.

At the core, they are all trying to offset losses by adding positions....just as you are trying to do.
And they use a grid of varying distance to open new positions...just as you do.

As you say, your method is safer because after 10 or so positions you won't have huge lot sizes running....but still, you are exposed to the same problems of market behavior. If you get stuck in a sideways range with fake outs up and down that never reach your ever increasing PT distance, you will struggle to get out of the basket in any kind of profit.
Also if you keep increasing lot sizes on a 1k account...all it takes is a platform freeze at a critical level, internet connection failure or power cut etc etc and your chance of a margin call is not so far fetched.
And we didn't even get into the major issues of latent execution, gaps, slippage, spread variations and all the other broker related hiccups that make a your calculated results wildly different from what you actually get. This is something you will unfortunately only see on live account. Demo execution and live are worlds apart.

I'm not telling you what to trade...it's up to you. Recently the market has been more volatile, and ADR's are up compared the the rest of this year. These conditions will most likely suit your approach. But the market volatility fluctuates...will this method work when some pairs struggle to reach 30 pips in a day?

My own opinion and experience is that sooner or later, mathematical approaches will fail.
It doesn't really matter what entry signal you choose, RSI's MA's, MACD...these are all lagging indicators which don't work long term, only in specific conditions. A mathematical approach won't make the signal any more reliable. It may help avoid losses for a while, but like any conditional based system, when conditions no longer suit, it breaks down.

I actually wasn't being sarcastic when i said good luck. Maybe you can find some way to optimise the idea. I hope that you do.

@ Swingman http://prntscr.com/4uq3ak
When i throw it on chart it does nothing and in expert i get that error.

@Trader34
I misjudged your reply and took it at sarcasm.
I have asked in developer section to have variable settings for tp, distance between a buy order and a sell one, order position size, the bid/ask calculation to close both tp and sl at the same price.
As far as tp/sl we will have a issue because spread is never the exact value that the broker is giving, and when a spread is of 1.2 pip this may vary and be 0.8,0.9, 1,3,1.5 but with this thing adjusted to calculate the spread also than we will have left a 0.2, 0.4 (the fluctuation). A better ideea would be to have the EA closing the loss orders when it determines that the winning one has closed. By reading every tick the EA can determine if a position is still open, and act in closing the other one if one has closed.
The slippage can be set to max 0.3 pip and increase the tp for each order to 1 pip for each order. That way we hold the slippage under control.
The multitude of open orders can be adjusted as this is in beta version and has only been tested manually without an actual EA to do this for you and i found that doing this manually with 10 pip between buy and sell is hard, specially when you running more than 3 pairs at the same time, and instead of quitting i have doubled everything (except the position size) to have 20 pip between orders and 30 to tp at 1st order. This means that we will have less trading on that pair and the chances of having one pair stuck because the price only moves in "zigzag" cannot be calculated as the market moves without a pattern.
Tests will be run on both strategy tester and normal for a period of time before taking a decision if this may add % to the capital or not, and when one of the developers will create the mql4 and ex4 we will have both, analyse and change what might be considered a problem to fix it.
I have asked for and EA to be made because one can't be at the pc 24/5 to open a trade when one needed and adjust tp,sl and i have experienced that from the first test. Been for 12 hrs in front of the pc and when decided to close for the day i still had pen orders without the possibility to open new pos and adjust tp,sl, as for the Rsi... It is simply one indicator ment to open the first order in any dirrection.
I can't write an EA but there are parameters that stop the EA from reading the Rsi or any other indicators once a trade is open. If- number of orders= 0 go to next parameter which say if-Rsi <50 open in x side an order. Now if the EA does not pass the first order given and finds one trade open he will not go and read the second line which tells him to read the Rsi on the chart.

I respect the work ethic, you are clearly very well prepared and researched.

For what it's worth i have a little experience with similar principles in an EA. I'm not a coder, but we did employ one to create the EA for us. It was a long, frustrating and costly process! We were building a hybrid grid system that included some of the features you mentioned.

It should be no problem for the coder to include an additional pip feature. We couldn't perfect real time spread calculation to a satisfactory level. There were too many delays/bugs with it. We ended up having an adjustable value in the settings to account for the spread that we could work out for each pair. It wasn't perfect but it was acceptable. What we did have was a feature that calculated when the spread was above a certain level, which then prevented the EA from opening any more orders. So, for example, if a news event came out when we were stuck in position, then once the spread raised too high, the EA would not open trades. It was good in principle but later found it caused issues with the calculations of PT's etc in our grid. Hopefully you will get a better solution than us.

Putting in a "close all" command when a winning one is closed should be no problem. As should be the RSI commands you are looking for. I would say though that if you use a "fancy" RSI rather than the stock standard MT4 version, it may cause lag on your PC depending on how many charts are running with the scripts. We had our script running on 8 pairs, and found the lag terrible sometimes, and found that complex indicators and the like were making it far worse.

Regarding the slippage control, i believe this is the only one you won't conquer. Even though MT4 has this built in protection, it is actually not effective, particularly with ECN brokers.
We tried to build in our own to the EA, but frankly it was still not effective. I'm not a coder, and frankly their language is alien to me! He did explain why it happens....I'll try to repeat it, at least as much as i could before my eyes glazed over!

When orders are executed, both at market and pending, your order is accepted by your broker on MT4 at "x" price. The broker then puts your order in the queue with it's liquidity pool/provider. If there is high volume, or delay between servers, or any other BS reason they choose....the price can move in those micro seconds it takes to process your individual order. By the time the liquidity provider executes it, they will not give you the price you asked, they by definition, give you the current market price (of course it's never in your benefit somehow!). This is the very nature of slippage.

The problem from an EA standpoint is that it is communicating with MT4. It does not go to liquidity provider directly. According to the MT4 feedback, there will be no slippage on it's end. In the records, it will show order executed at "x" price, in "y" milliseconds. The transition between MT4 and the liquidity provider is the issue, so the EA will never really pick up the slippage. It's also why the feature on MT4 is ineffective. In fact I can't work out why they even include it on the platform...but it looks good i guess.
You also must remember that having the script opening and closing orders will increase the latency effect on order processing, because essentially it is a 3rd party in the equation of the order execution.

Anyway, just some of my experiences.
I hope you get the EA as you want.

The best is to test the EA on a small live account.
It's not a "kalachnikov" EA triggering 10 orders a minute.
In my opinion this system has a sense.

I'm only half understanding what you just wrote, as i said, coding is not my field. I don't see any problem with the EA opening positions according to your RSI settings. Any effect of lag in this instance probably will be negligible, yes.
My main concern was not lagging....it is the unavoidable slippage from the interaction between MT4, the broker, and the real liquidity provider, compounded by the EA which runs as a third party to the transaction. No feature of any EA will compensate for this, and unfortunately, it's effect will not be apparent until it is run on live servers.

In general, the EA we used didn't suffer significant lag. However it did suffer slippage if allowed to run at high volatility times; for example NFP or any news related to AUD pairs specifically in Tokyo session. We found no way to counter this effect.
This is my key concern when running this type of system on EA.
An order opened 5/10 pips away from it's intended level will throw out the whole calculation regarding profit and loss in that trade basket. If you don't happen to be in front of the PC when this happens, then you will not be able to take action to compensate for any issues.

That's the only point i was really trying to illustrate. If you can avoid trading during the times when slippage is a likelihood, then great. If you can't then I fear you will be stung.