learn and earn from the ups and downs...of life.
- #463
- Mar 11, 2016 11:45pm Mar 11, 2016 11:45pm
{quote} I answered your question here. The indicator should be capable of plotting boxes from 2200 to 0300, set StartHours = 22, EndHours/ExtendHours = 27. At least that's the way that it was intended to work. See post #1 for full instructions. If you want two separate time periods plotted, then attach the indicator (below) twice to the same chart, with a different value in UniqueID for each instance of the indicator. If this doesn't meet your requirement, then I'm sorry,...
learn and earn from the ups and downs...of life.
{quote} Diki, A lot of my indicators allow the use of parameter files. I've upgraded Signal.ex4 for you so that the attached copy now does the same. Unzip the file and download the files into the same folders as in the ZIP. Then you can use a text editor like Notepad to edit the Presets---Signal.1 file to change the parameter settings to any values you wish, and enter 1 as the ParameterFile in the indicator settings dialog. This will cause the settings in the file to be used (overriding those in the dialog). After that, you can copy this file to...
Hi Dave,
Thanks for all the help.
1. The work around you suggested is definitely functional.
Its a well appreciated backup plan considering it has a bit more steps than what I originally want to achieve;
2. I have noticed that the reason why the new Signal indicator was not compiling was due to missing include files. Once I had them in the proper folder the indicator compiled but afterwards I have spotted that it wasn't printing on the chart correctly. Some digits are missing in all the info lines when the indi is plotted on the chart. Btw I only use the compiled file in the folder not the source code. I have tested this on all my machines Win 7 Ultimate and Win 10 Ultimate across 8 platforms. The results are the same. Heres a screen shot of it.
3. As a temporary solution (which I'm currently using) I managed to compile the old Signal indicator in the old MT4 build 509 editor;
4. Following the same logic I tried to compile the new indicator in the old editor but had no success there. These were the errors:
Don't lose any sleep over this but if you have another flash of clever ideas I'm open for suggestions.
- #465
- Mar 12, 2016 9:21am Mar 12, 2016 9:21am
- Joined Nov 2012 | Status: Coder | 8,521 Posts
Try don't lose pants never...
- #477
- Edited 3:50am Mar 22, 2016 3:11am | Edited 3:50am
- Joined Sep 2006 | Status: ... | 8,112 Posts
I would be grateful if you could give your opinion on this "hot" strategy on FF
I'm a retired programmer and investor, not a pro forex trader. But I'll give you some tips, for whatever they're worth.
I had a quick look at the video in post #1. But then I noticed that he has not released Part 2 of the strategy yet. So I will just offer some general guidelines at this point:
1. Outside of arbitrage, there is no such thing as a guaranteed 100% win system (i.e. continuous return at zero risk). The only way to increase win rate is to either (i) decrease RR -- i.e. making your losses bigger -- or (ii) otherwise increase long term risk in some way. Many of the best performing systems have a win rate of less 50% but occasionally ride long trends to make high RR trades. In other words, it is counter-intuitive.
2. Ultimately there is only one way to win, and that is to be net long while price is rising, and net short while it's falling, frequently/heavily enough to overcome br0ker costs. Hedges, rings and baskets do not in themselves provide an edge. They merely break down into simpler positions, and normally these simpler positions incur less costs. When I see a complex hedge strategy, I cancel out any equal opposing trades to establish a net position, and try to ascertain when it's net long while price is rising, etc. There's no need to be fooled by undue complexity, when it's possible to atomize concepts down to their basic building blocks.
3. In general, a system that doesn't exploit some kind of non-randomess in price movement -- either in its entries, or its exits -- will eventually be overrun by costs. Grids are less efficient than (skilled) analysis based systems, because the entries/exits are simply made at a spaced number of pips that bears no relationship to order volumes (which drive the price movement). So in general, no analysis = no edge. However, as an exception to this I'm aware of two market truisms that can provide an edge: (i) after every prolonged move, there is generally some profit taking, causing some kind of retracement; and (ii) price must eventually break out of tight consolidation. A grid system may (possibly unwittingly) cash in on one of these truisms.
NOTE: The survivability, and profitability, of any system, including a grid can potentially be increased if it's traded only in the direction of strong macro-backed trends. Obviously that means no hedging. (Or in lieu of FA, simply pick the strongest trending pair).
4. There is no edge to be gained from MM (position sizing), unless you can somehow get the larger positions to coincide with winning trades. To achieve this, some (skilled) analysis is required. MM can not in itself rescue a edge-less or losing system, and (everything else being equal) it can not enhance an existing edge. In math terms, MM by itself can not alter expectancy; both PipMeUp and I have provided proofs numerous times elsewhere.
5. If, after the hedge has been broken down, the only possibility of an edge comes from adding to losing positions, attempting to recover from recent losses, and/or some kind of martingale or position sizing variant -- in other words, the system is trying to establish an edge through its own P/L, which the market takes no cognizance of -- then I would avoid running the system on a real-money account.
6. Always employ prudent risk management, i.e. each trade (or completed hedge, or completed group of trades) should not exceed a risk exposure of X% (where X% represents an amount that you are comfortable losing). Exception: if you're starting with $50 (or a deposit that you don't care if you lose it) and seeing if you're lucky enough to withdraw profits before the the account gets blown, then obviously risk management doesn't matter.
7. I dislike averaging down, even if the total risk is capped, for the following reason: whenever you win, you will gain, on average, an amount multiplied by the average size of all of your positions; but whenever you lose, you will always lose an amount that involves the sum of all your positions. Hence, over the long term (and everything else being equal) averaging down is no better (in terms of increasing return) than simply entering a single position at the average price. (I prefer to average up, i.e. add to winning positions, in a strong macro-backed trend).
8. If the system is mechanical enough to be coded as an EA, then keep in mind that no EA can ever trade as intelligently or adaptively as an experienced human.
Parts of the above are explained in more detail, along with other relevant concepts, here.
Good luck. I can't comment intelligently on a system that I haven't tested comprehensively myself, hence I've restricted myself to general comment only. So I would try the system yourself on demo for at least 6 months, or 500 completed groups of trades, preferably longer. That should give you a rough feel as to typical return, win-loss patterns, worst drawdown, consistency of income, etc. And that way, if the system bombs, you lose nothing; but if it miraculously turns out to be a world-beater (I try to keep an open mind
), then you have the rest of your life to compound an exponential income out of it.David
- #479
- Edited 4:16pm Mar 22, 2016 1:09pm | Edited 4:16pm
- Joined Sep 2006 | Status: ... | 8,112 Posts
Please have a look at it, as it gives a more complete picture.
To state the obvious, it is impossible to predict how price will behave in the future. Videos can show only one possible example, and most of the time price will move differently, and sometimes in a way that the presenter didn't anticipate that will cause significant loss; the question is whether the system generates enough profit to offset these losses. An obvious example might be a high impact news that causes price to instantly spike 100 pips, and with a 30 pip spread; and there is no guarantee that the current group of trades will be able to be closed before this type of event occurs. Or it could simply be a slower movement without retracements that allow sufficient profit to be collected, causing a situation that is ostensibly irretrievable. When will this 'death trade' happen? Nobody can possibly know.
If, in order to survive, a system depends on a certain event never happening, that system will certainly fail at some future point. The best you can hope for is that it fails after you've reached your financial goals, i.e. that you had quit while you were still ahead.
Costs are a big enemy of grid systems. As somebody else pointed out in the thread, opening many positions will cause high transaction costs (spreads, commissions, opportunities for slippage, etc), that the videos don't factor. To reduce this effect, the space between the grid entries would need to be large, say 50-100 pips. But the wider the entries are spaced, the slower the system makes (or loses) money. If you couple this with the fact that you have to trade microlots to allow you survive any big adverse moves, the rate of income may be unacceptably slow.
I've been around Forex Factory for 10 years, and I have yet to see one of these analysis-free grid systems work profitably in the long term. Price eventually moves in some way that causes all previous profits get wiped out. Hence I won't be investing any time or money in this type of project. But to be fair, I'm no longer looking for new ideas for winning systems.
I admire people for their effort and ingenuity, but I don't believe that there is a shortcut to winning at forex; to win, you must learn the hows and whys of price movement, and use this to find an analysis-based edge that's robust enough to survive several years of changing markets. To state the obvious, there are something like 18 million (aspiring) traders currently using MT4, and if there was an effortless way to gain a risk-free, passive income, it would have been discovered long ago. Bloodpoodle explains the realities well here. There will always be banks and institutions that have vastly more expertise, more information, and more capital than retail traders. Like I said in my previous post, I try to keep an open mind, but I won't be holding my breath waiting to see this massive advantage overturned by an analysis-free grid.
I know a couple of very successful fund managers. They use different types of fundamental analysis, and approaches that look to find and exploit trends and correlations across different markets. They cut losses and manage risk, rather than employ systems that prioritize the banking of profits. That should tell us something.
Anyway, no doubt somebody (not me!!) will be brave enough to write the EA for this grid. Then you'll be able to test it and see what happens, discover its strengths and weaknesses, and what price movements cause it to win, and (sadly) to lose.
Whatever the outcome, have fun!
