Both of themOriginally Posted by ;
 |
|
Both of them
Osfx,
I have been studying MT5 and maintained hitting a brick wall before I discovered that my account was based on a hedge accounting program instead of a netted system. I'm curios what system you're using? Https://www.mql5.com/en/articles/2299
It makes a big difference from the programming for averaged entrances; keeping separate stop losses for unique places, or even a stop loss for a particular position.
The multi currency aspect has been difficult to get my mind around but its starting to come together today. Today although I previously did not use arrays much everything is coded as an array.
I use the payoff system. This is the alternative for a system like this, since it manages every trade separately, very similar to MT4. The netting system assembles all trades of a logo to a single position, which demands an whole different coding - along with the killer argument: it only enables challenging SL's for your position that is complete. Unfortunately, the accounting style includes the broker and you cannot change it yourself (as far as I understand). I have found only 4 brokers up to now, that provide the mode that was payoff.
The largest difference between MQL5 and MQL4 is that the managing of the trades. Whereas MQL4 only knows orders (pending or open), MQL5 Includes order, deals and positions...
Regards, Oliver
It's time after launching v01 to get a summary.
We had a decent rise of the equilibrium of about 6 percent, but the floating drawdown is quite high (max. Roughly 40 percent of first balance). This is brought on by three pairs (AUDUSD, EURCHF, GBPCHF), which were triggered and then transferred another way without significant pullbacks.
The idea was to trade 9 pairs with the very same settings to increase the risk leading to a smoother equity curve. This didn't work out really well.
Perhaps we have to come back to an individual evaluation of each pair, as each of them shows it's own attributes. This can also lead to drop some of them.
There are various additional thoughts, which are worth looking at. One of is to construct a cluster RMI that is multiple-timeframe. Some of you have heard of cluster indiors, such as CCFp. They rate the strength/weakness of one currency by relating them to a couple of different currencies. Perhaps we improve our odds by only buying/selling pairs together with the strongest/weakest currencies included.
I will be on vacancy together with my family for the next 2 weeks, then, I will keep on working on those thoughts. Meanwhile I will keep v01 running as it's.
Regards, Oliver
Osfx,
I've gone to MT4 and the GBPCAD to try different ideas to reduce draw downs. I was almost able to replie your and the results on the GBPCAD of Cubby. A few draw downs have been smoothed out by me but'm stuck without a lot of pullback in June2010 with all the flash crash in October2016 and a trend.
I've tried:
Dynamicly decreasing TP as more entries are taken gt;gt; this did help smooth some draw drawbacks but reduces overall profitability.
Exit on opposite RMI signal or exit on opposite RMI IB sign gt;gt;this avoids the very profound draw downs from the principles but reduces profitability and causes extended intervals of weathered balance (I'm going to revisit this thought because it appears quite robust if I can raise the profitability)
Attached test from 2007 to 2017
Initiate hedge on high range volatile pubs and unwind the hedge when volatility subsides gt;gt; this looks promising but I'm still working on this code, its a bit buggy, the idea is to avoid the flash crash bars. I've got a couple of hedging ideas to try.
--
I'm wondering if you found a way to avoid the 2010 pull down, and by the looks of things that your volatility filter helped avoid the 2016 spike, is this correct? Any clues is greatly valued.
I can also see that numerous brokers can get you in earlier or later which can make all the difference on being captured in a protracted trend.
Regards,
I am way behind you fellows, I am still trying to construct a Inside candle RMI EA so that I can share and collaborate on my testing. I am assuming your EA testing is a candle RMI. Did you buy it ? , or code it ?
-The proposal above multiple RMI time frames seems like a swell idea!!
- When I get my inside RMI EA I will most likely only turn it on after I take a trade, and allow the robot complete the job. That's what I am gonna check out. But I am sure there it will not be profitable if I were to leave it.
Great article! Thanks , Cliff
Hi Blix,
which settings did you use for the test ? Cubbybgood's first ones or people from my record ?
I shall then upload a detailed trade history that you compare the transactions in the specific phases together with your. Concerning the flash accident in 10/2016, the M1-rule should have saved you from a big DD. The DD from 2010 is another story - I noticed, that even small parameter changes (or broker price feeds ?) Decide, not or whether you're involved in this DD, which is not good and could be considered a proof of curve fitting.
Exit on opposite RMI sign is indeed a smart idea, as it leads the characteristics of the egy into a new direction.
Regards, Oliver
Osfx,
As an example, I am using the original parameters with an additional rule. I noticed a few periods in which the machine only just got from a basket commerce and was quite near a stop cascade (in the case of the 2010 pull it down got caught). To reduce the probability of being caught in the trade I included the rule of a lively TP adjustment at a small loss or to get out of trades earlier. So as the # of positions increases the NET pip target declines with a factor of this #positions, this ends up being negative since the #positions rises beyond a certain amount, but it means you want a pullback that is smaller to get out of a basket.
This principle still got me caught onto the 2010 draw down, therefore it is a work in progress.
I am careful about curve fitting, therefore I am attempting to create my mods general rule changes rather than parameter tweaks.
BTW, thanks for the M1 tip. I'll be implementing this.
Cliff,
- Once I get my inside RMI EA , I will most likely simply turn it on after I manually take a commerce, and allow the robot complete the job. That is precisely what I am gonna test out. But I am convinced there it won't be as profitable if I were to leave it.
Personally I'd use some sort of forward tester software such as forex tester2 if I was planning to test any manual egy. You need years of testing a Reward:Risk ratio egy whether it is going to blow up, to understand. This egy relies on position size to permit for baskets of trades, so that you cant leverage it quite far. In the event that you were just testing over a few months you might think you are on a winner and begin position dimensions the draw down looks and you are way over leveraged. Forex tester would let you manually test years of price action over a weekend and give you an excellent idea of this strengths/weaknesses of this machine.
HI, Can I be able to use mt4 ea in Currency Market tester or is it different programming?
Forex tester is very much like mt4 concerning performance, it does have a similar language to mt4 but maybe not the same (I don't know about the current version). It's been some time since I've looked at it but I know about people composing indiors and scripts to test egies. If you hunt Forexforum.co.za you will find examples of how people have utilized it.
There are different platforms to manually test egies within metatrader itself, this may be a fantastic alternative. Should you do some searches there are lots of third party manual backtesting tools which operate with metatrader.
To me personally it is the only way to efficiently test a manual egy, that doesn't give you hindsight bias.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
