Hanover replies to PMs | Page 25 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Abokwaik replies to PMs 96 replies

Hanover - can you help me with MT4 qs please? 4 replies

Attachments: Hanover replies to PMs
Exit Attachments

Hanover replies to PMs

  • #481
  • Apr 11, 2016 9:46pm Apr 11, 2016 9:46pm
Quoting hanover
{quote} If each system has its own edge, then I can see how they could complement each other, i.e. one is profiting while the other is treading, or under, water. David
Hello David, time-wise the the rate stays in range in about 80% of the time and it is trending in the rest 20%. However, pip-wise, the price is going just the other way around: trend 80%, range 20%.

On the top of that, the buy/sell candles of any given time frame are almost equal numbers. Which means, one can buy in a downtrend and sell in an uptrend, without having any worries. This is what the range strategy does, being backed up by the trend one, in case the things go wrong, as they often do. It take an advantage of the counter-trend movements mostly. When the price gets the trend direction, you switch it off, cause it will not be in any help anymore. It will be a burden instead.

Wrapping the range strategy around the trend one does one, or more, of the following:

a. increases the profits, by adding some extra, unexpected otherwise, profit from the range closures
b. brings the trend's exit points a lot closer, based on the heavily reduced DD (range's profit), thus making the zero effect hard to come, is ever (more likely)
c. if one is not maximizing the P/L (not being greedy), will never ever being catch into a heavy DDs under whatever the circumstances there might be

I do know you do not like hedging. You might re-consider your attitude towards it. Hedging is damn good when you find ways to hedge the sells on top of the buys and the buys below the sells. This is how you lock down net profit. That is exactly what I am doing all the time. Then I close the counter trend trades at certain moments of time. That is all possible, due to the very good trend strategy I am using. I do know it will never fail me down, therefore I do cash in on some of the corrections, which otherwise would be very very risky to trade without something keeping your back (range vs trend).

David, I think, you have plenty of knowledge, based on experience. Considering this, you could come up with something really good, if you just throw away the widely spread concepts about the martingale and hedging, which are absolutely true, when referred to each one, individually, on their own, and embrace the unthinkable, till that moment, idea of combining them all together into a quite profitable bundle (sometimes).

One last thing. I am not interested in the exact candle formation on the chart. I only do follow the price itself. The price tells me when there is going to be a trend and which side the trend will go. The price also tells when there is going to be a range. These warnings are available in 6 to 48 hrs prior to the move. Usually it is in between 6 and 24 hrs, but I have seen 48 hrs warnings, too. One has to stay on the market open for 24/5 to be able to catch it. Based to those prior warnings, I do decide to close down or keep the range trades. However, not very good at, still learning...
Maadik Hugiis. IQ 69.
  • #482
  • Apr 12, 2016 3:27am Apr 12, 2016 3:27am
Hi Hanover
Would you kindly take a look at this attached indicator. I am trying to make an EA out of it on eabuilder.com but they are saying the indicator needs to be in the MT4-600 build code?!
My MT4 is build 950 and the indicator compiles without errors or warnings
Attached File(s)
File Type: mq4 PinbarDetectorlaptop.mq4   10 KB | 450 downloads
  • #483
  • Edited 3:47am Apr 12, 2016 3:32am | Edited 3:47am
Quoting MoneyZilla
David, I think, you have plenty of knowledge, based on experience. Considering this, you could come up with something really good, if you just throw away the widely spread concepts about the martingale and hedging, which are absolutely true, when referred to each one, individually, on their own, and embrace the unthinkable, till that moment, idea of combining them all together into a quite profitable bundle (sometimes).
Many thanks for your reply.

I don't "dislike" martingale, and not because of "widely spread concepts". It's nowhere near as clear cut as that. As I explained in the linked posts in the other thread, there are specific risk and return based benefits, and drawbacks, to different martingale variants (capped v uncapped; independent v correlated trades; doubling v other multipliers; etc).

While it's very possible to be profitable using same-pair-hedging, it's always possible to be more profitable without the hedging, in every conceivable scenario. That statement might seem presumptuous, but I've given several examples of how and why, in the links, and I regard the underlying mathematical principles as being unassailable. I don't believe it's possible to say that (for example) if you are 2 lots long and 1 lot short, that there is any way of attaining a different result to a trader who simply has a single position of 1 lot long. No matter how you cut it, 2 minus 1 is always going to equal 1. But I'm starting to repeat material that I've written elsewhere.......

I believe that if systems are combined, then each must have a profitable edge in its own right, in order to be justifiable. If I may use investments as an analogy, suppose my portfolio has four separate investments, A, B , C and D, whose average annual return is +30%, +20%, +5% and -10%, respectively. Even if investment D frequently provides a profit whenever A, B and C have losing months, my overall performance -- in terms of maximizing return -- would be better off without D altogether. However, I concede that if the primary objective is to smooth out the short term returns, then retaining D might be worthwhile, but provided that I'm willing to live with its overall loss, and a lower overall return. I believe that the same principle applies to combining a mixed 'portfolio' of different trading systems.

As I've written elsewhere, I believe in breaking complex concepts down to their building blocks, to remove any 'smoke and mirrors' that might be obscuring the most straightforward possible view. 'Smoke and mirror' MMs can frequently obscure what would otherwise be obvious flaws in certain types of system. Where systems are being combined, there's no logical harm in examining each of them in isolation, its strengths and weaknesses, and its contribution to the overall result.

I appreciate that you're trying to help me, and I have no problem believing that your method is profitable, although I would need to see a lot more detail in order to understand it fully. However, please don't put yourself to the trouble of explaining it further -- unless you wish to help some other FF members -- as my poor ageing brain is already overloaded with other promising concepts and strategies that I'm attempting to refine further.

But thanks again, and I wish you much continued success.
  • #484
  • Apr 12, 2016 3:43am Apr 12, 2016 3:43am
Quoting contrails
Would you kindly take a look at this attached indicator. I am trying to make an EA out of it on eabuilder.com but they are saying the indicator needs to be in the MT4-600 build code?! My MT4 is build 950 and the indicator compiles without errors or warnings
I compiled your indicator using the build 509 compiler (the old MQL4 language), and also using the build 950 compiler (the new MT4 language that was introduced with build 600). In both cases it compiled perfectly well without any errors or warnings. By "MT4-600 build code" I assume they mean that it should compile and run on any build from 600 onward.

I'm too busy to look at the specifics of the code, and I've never used ebuilder.com, hence I can't comment further.
  • #485
  • Apr 12, 2016 4:14am Apr 12, 2016 4:14am
Quoting hanover
{quote} I don't believe it's possible to say that (for example) if you are 2 lots long and 1 lot short, that there is any way of attaining a different result to a trader who simply has a single position of 1 lot long. No matter how you cut it, 2 minus 1 is always going to equal 1.
Simply put, this is correct. However, more complicated dissection might show something different. Distribution matters. A lot. I will give you an example.
Imagine you have 1.1400 as a level. You distribute the 2 buy lots into 20 x 0.10 lot trades below 1.1400, starting from 1.1395, 5 pips apart. The last buy trade would be at 1.1300.
The 1 lot sell trades is distributed the very same way. 20 trades x 0.05 lot each, starting from 1.1405 and ending at 1.1500.

Imagine, you have RR 2:1. TP at 1.1600 and a SL at 1.1300. The price goes up in your favor, reaching 1.1530, but it it turns around and reaches your SL rate at 1.1300 instead. How much do you lose there?

Lets see. The average 2 lots buy price will be around 1.1350, lets say, losing -$1,000, for the argument. The 1 lot sells would be with an average price somewhere around 1.1450, resulting in +$1,500 profit at 1.1300. So the net, at your SL point is $500, actually.

I do know my example is a pure set up, David. No need to argue on it why and what if, ext. It is an example of how, when properly put, 1 lot beats the shits out of 2 lots, even when the things go terribly bad.

It is just a principle. You do love mathematics, David. I can see that. But it seems to me, there is a lot in there nobody is paying an attention to.

How you are going to get this distribution I just showed in the example above and how you are going to keep your back in the many possible ways the rate might go, is not a topic of my post here and I would not discuss that on FF anyway. It is pure math, where 1-2 is not always -1. Sometimes, depending on the placement and distribution, on equal basis, it can be and it is +0.5.

I hope this was helpful...

Quote
But thanks again, and I wish you much continued success.
Same to you David! Good luck!
Maadik Hugiis. IQ 69.
  • #486
  • Edited Apr 13, 2016 4:49am Apr 12, 2016 5:51am | Edited Apr 13, 2016 4:49am
Quoting MoneyZilla
Simply put, this is correct.........
Regardless of the numbers in your example, at every point along the way, you have a net position that is the difference between the total number of lots long (say, X lots) and the total number of lots short (say, Y lots). There are only 3 possibilities:
1. Whenever X>Y, you are effectively net long X-Y lots
2. Whenever X<Y, you are effectively net short Y-X lots
3. Whenever X=Y, you are effectively net flat

Now every time your net position changes, I adjust my position at exactly the same time and price:
In situation 1, I simply adjust my position so that I have a single order that is long (X-Y) lots.
In situation 2, I simply adjust my position so that I have a single order that is short (Y-X) lots.
In situation 3, I simply close any open positions, so that I'm out of the market.

By maintaining only one position, I'm never hedged, and because my net position is always the same as yours, I capture exactly the same pips and P/L as you.

If you work through the number of orders, the spread costs are the same for both of us. However, in situation 3, you're paying any difference in swap to your br0ker (br0kers tend to charge more swap than they pay out), while I'm out of the market, hence I pay nothing. That's why the non-hedged trader will always outperform the trader that's hedged, and I can make this seemingly presumptuous statement with assurance. (Although I'm aware of one possible exception).

So when I said that 2 lots minus 1 lot is always 1 lot (in my previous post), I was referring to the net position, i.e. X lots minus Y lots is always (X-Y) lots, and that the math is unassailable.

Both traders are effectively using the same strategy, adjusting their positions at exactly the same time/price. Hedging is merely a different way of placing the orders, with the operational convenience that MT4 allows you to have a SL and TP for each order. But (every time you're net flat at 5pm New York time) you're paying additional swap for the privilege of having that convenience.

As I've attempted to explain to everybody else, I never said that it was impossible for the hedged trader to be profitable. I merely said that it's possible to replicate the pips captured, and the P/L, without hedging, and therefore hedging, in itself, is not a strategy.

Being profitable is a matter of being net long while price is rising, and net short while it's falling, frequently/heavily enough to overcome costs. Operationally, there are several different ways of achieving the same net result. The more accurately a trader adjusts his position relative to market turns in his chosen trading horizon, the more pips he banks: the timing of the adjustments (entries and exits) is a strategic, rather than an operational, issue.

Now I've basically repeated the point that I made in the linked posts.

Do you see it now?
  • #487
  • Apr 12, 2016 6:43am Apr 12, 2016 6:43am
Quoting hanover
{quote}Do you see it now?
Thanks for the clarifications. I do understand everything you have said and explained. It is all clear to me. Thank you for the detailed explanations David.
Maadik Hugiis. IQ 69.
  • #488
  • Apr 13, 2016 12:41am Apr 13, 2016 12:41am
Quoting hanover
{quote} hedging, in itself, is not a strategy.
David, take a look at the visual example provided here. There are 0.07 short lots and 0.15 long lots. The net is 0.08 long lots. At the time of the screenshot, the price is almost close to the lowest long trade. Surely, it is below the average long price, where, if it was a net long 0.08 lots, it should have been at loss?!

Even when the price was still below it, there was a profit of $4... The red line shows where the session have been started.

To me, hedging does seem to be a strategy, cause it takes lots of brain power to figure out how to place the trades in such a way to maintain profit, when the regular net lot/position traders are maintaining losses actually, at the very same moments. That is nothing else but a pure strategy... You cannot call moving the figures on the chess board not being a strategy. The same of making certain formations with the same figures.

I am very very qurious, how you are going to achive similar result, by working only with net position lots?!?;-)

Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: image.png Size: 208 KB
Maadik Hugiis. IQ 69.
  • #489
  • Apr 13, 2016 2:03am Apr 13, 2016 2:03am
  •  313
  • | Joined Jun 2015 | Status: Strive and Overcome! | 46 Posts
Hey guys do you have a script that can open multiple order, with "x.xx" lots in one click without tp or sl?
i use sangmane easyorder, but everytime when im deleting the tp&sl set the script wont run. currently i've already use EA to set my tp and sl.

thankyou much appreciated
  • #490
  • Edited Apr 14, 2016 1:43am Apr 13, 2016 2:47am | Edited Apr 14, 2016 1:43am
Quoting MoneyZilla
David, take a look at the visual example provided here......I am very very curious, how you are going to achieve similar result, by working only with net position lots?!
I believe that the math and logic outlined in post #486 holds good in all situations, for the reasons that I gave. But if you want to list all of your entry and exit points, along with the sequence that price triggered each of them -- sorry, I find your chart difficult to follow -- I'll post a similar, detailed step-by-step analysis along the lines of the one I did for Kiads, if that would be helpful to you. However, in post #487 you said that you understood, hence I assume that I can save myself the effort?

Quote
it takes lots of brain power to figure out how to place the trades in such a way to maintain profit
For me, it's the overall (ending) P/L that counts, it's not a matter of "maintaining profit". In one example that was posted a few years ago, the hedged trader ended up with 2 winning trades, something like +50 and +30, while the unhedged trader had a win and a loss, something like +120 and -40, but both ended up +80, the same overall P/L.

Re "lots of brain power", surely that's a case for automation, which I assume that you already use for your entries and exits, anyway? Otherwise, then sure, use the operational ease that same-pair-hedging provides; apart from any additional swap costs, it will deliver the same overall P/L.

Quote
To me, hedging does seem to be a strategy, cause it takes lots of brain power to figure out how to place the trades in such a way to maintain profit, when the regular net lot/position traders are maintaining losses actually, at the very same moments. That is nothing else but a pure strategy...
Please excuse my lack of stamina, but I've grown tired of debates about trading semantics. We could argue about what constitutes "strategy" until doomsday. I described my thought processes in post #486, but I'm not like a religious preacher who's trying to convert everybody to his way of thinking. Let us simply agree to differ.
  • #491
  • Apr 13, 2016 2:48am Apr 13, 2016 2:48am
Quoting 313
Hey guys do you have a script that can open multiple order, with "x.xx" lots in one click without tp or sl?
Sorry, but I can't help, as the order entry scripts that I have don't operate on the basis of one click.
  • #492
  • Edited 3:49am Apr 13, 2016 3:12am | Edited 3:49am
Quoting hanover
{quote} I compiled your indicator using the build 509 compiler (the old MQL4 language), and also using the build 950 compiler (the new MT4 language that was introduced with build 600). In both cases it compiled perfectly well without any errors or warnings. By "MT4-600 build code" I assume they mean that it should compile and run on any build from 600 onward. I'm too busy to look at the specifics of the code, and I've never used ebuilder.com, hence I can't comment further.

Hi Hanover, here is the response I got from eabuider.com; would you please let me know if this is making any sense? and if you could point me to what I can do to fix?

I am attaching the exact indicator I sent to them again, there is a chance it maybe different from what I sent you earlier. Would you please double check the code

again^_^ the attached also contains the bad EA I generated from the website



Yes, we opened the code and there is an old function. The code compiles fine (because of backcompatibility), but from our experience, it often leads to inconsistent behavior when used in an EA. There is no way to fix it, only programmed from scratch in the new language.



Attached Image (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: 2016-04-13 01_47_09-.png Size: 80 KB



Are you sure that the code for the indicator is old? Did you look at the code?
It works great on my MT4 which is updated (build 950 ) and it compiles fine.

And if so, is there a quick fix for the code?

Thanks for your help
Attached File(s)
File Type: zip Quick start guide to creating your own strategies.zip   22 KB | 431 downloads
  • #493
  • Apr 13, 2016 3:58am Apr 13, 2016 3:58am
Quoting hanover
{quote} However, in post #487 you said that you understood, hence I assume that I can save myself the effort?
Yes David, no need to explain anything any further. I do understand every word you say. Somehow, you do not understand what I have visually shown you and that is OK.

Quote
use the operational ease that same-pair-hedging provides; apart from any additional swap costs, it will deliver the same overall P/L.

That is not ALWAYS true. I have attached a visual example that needs zero further explanations.

Preaching/teaching that hedging brings ALWAYS the same results as the net positioning is as true as ANY religious story in the whole history of mankind. However, I do agree with you. No need to proceed any further with this talk.

Please, do not take any offense, but I will open a tread to show how one can hedge and make money out of that. All anti-hedge enthusiasts are very much welcome there, I would love to explain it in details.

Have a nice day, David!
Maadik Hugiis. IQ 69.
  • #494
  • Apr 13, 2016 4:22am Apr 13, 2016 4:22am
Not sure how I ended up here, but very interesting we live in the same city hanover I didn't think many around here were into this kind of thing.
Pursuit of happiness
  • #495
  • Edited 6:46am Apr 13, 2016 5:58am | Edited 6:46am
Quoting MoneyZilla
There are 0.07 short lots and 0.15 long lots. The net is 0.08 long lots. At the time of the screenshot, the price is almost close to the lowest long trade. Surely, it is below the average long price, where, if it was a net long 0.08 lots, it should have been at loss?! Even when the price was still below it, there was a profit of $4...
Re the chart in your screenshot -- assuming that red arrows represent sell orders and blue arrows buy orders -- then the reason your position is in overall profit is because the sell orders, although of lesser volume (0.07 vs 0.15), are ahead by more pips than the buy orders.

The tipping point (where net P/L = 0) depends on the volumes and the levels that the orders were triggered. A perfectly symmetrical set of buy and sell orders would set the tipping point exactly half way between the sets of arrows. A higher volume of buy orders (at the blue arrows) will lower the tipping point toward or even beyond the bottom of the set of blue arrows, but after price falls below the tipping point, the overall result will be in loss, due to the higher total volume of buy orders.

Quote
I have attached a visual example that needs zero further explanations.........
I am very very qurious, how you are going to achive similar result, by working only with net position lots?
It's too difficult to see the exact price levels of both the candles and arrows; some of the candle wicks are obscured by the arrows (making it impossible to see which orders were triggered by the wicks); and it's not stated what size positions were entered at each arrow. Hence I can't perform any of the calculations needed to perform an analysis like the one I did for Kiads. The best I can do, from the available info, is to say that my single net position would be 0.08 lots long at the RHE of the chart, and that it would have been adjusted to match the hedged position every time you opened or closed an order along the way.

Quoting MoneyZilla
Preaching/teaching that hedging brings ALWAYS the same results as the net positioning is as true as ANY religious story in the whole history of mankind.
I'm merely presenting my views for the reader's consideration. Feel welcome to examine the underlying math and logic, and make of it whatever you will.

Quote
No need to proceed any further with this talk. Please, do not take any offense, but I will open a tread to show how one can hedge and make money out of that. All anti-hedge enthusiasts are very much welcome there, I would love to explain it in details.
Not sure why you think there might be cause for any offense. I'll be interested to read your thread, but I've made all the points that I wanted to many times already. I'm happy to end the discussion here at any point that you wish.
  • #496
  • Apr 13, 2016 6:11am Apr 13, 2016 6:11am
Quoting Poh
Not sure how I ended up here, but very interesting we live in the same city hanover I didn't think many around here were into this kind of thing.
Nice to hear from you. I used to be part of a group of traders (mainly forex) who attended a monthly meeting in Morrinsville, but the group was disbanded a couple of years ago. I still keep in touch with at least 4 of the people involved.

There are apparently something like 377,000 Forex Factory members. I guess that it's inevitable that there would be more than one from a city of our size.
  • #497
  • Apr 13, 2016 6:28am Apr 13, 2016 6:28am
Quoting hanover
{quote} Nice to hear from you. I used to be part of a group of traders (mainly forex) who attended a monthly meeting in Morrinsville, but the group was disbanded a couple of years ago. I still keep in touch with at least 4 of the people involved. There are apparently something like 377,000 Forex Factory members. I guess that it's inevitable that there would be more than one from a city of our size.

That's a shame being able to talk to like minded people in person sure would be much easier and yes I suppose I should expect a few around who live in Hamilton.. perhaps the better question is how many of them are successful.
Pursuit of happiness
  • #498
  • Apr 14, 2016 12:56am Apr 14, 2016 12:56am
Quoting ForMeFact0ry
how can we keep in touch?
Please feel welcome to make comments or post questions in this thread. I've disabled Private Messaging because I get too many programming requests. I no longer have time for programming or troubleshooting, unless the indicator is useful to me personally.
  • #499
  • Apr 15, 2016 11:04am Apr 15, 2016 11:04am
Quoting hanover
{quote} Please feel welcome to make comments or post questions in this thread. I've disabled Private Messaging because I get too many programming requests. I no longer have time for programming or troubleshooting, unless the indicator is useful to me personally.
Noted and subscribed to this thread. Thanks again.
bit . ly/fantestimonials
  • #500
  • Apr 16, 2016 2:17am Apr 16, 2016 2:17am
Dear Hanover,
If you don't mind, I would like to ask your advice about currency futures. I know there are never ending debate about fx spot vs. fx futures. I recently read this link and it made me considering move to fx futures. However, trading futures seems somewhat tricky than forex, and the trading system I downloaded from Interactive Brokers is much more complicated than MT4.
Do you agree futures better than spot? Is it worth moving to futures? It looks you only trade Forex....
I would appreciate your input.
Thanks,
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
0 traders viewing now