If start capital is $3000 then it should work with a percent of 0,4%. But it doesn’t. How can that be? Is there a calculation error somewhere in the code?
Is the new “Equitydrop” actual the dollar % of balance drawdown each pip? or is it if equity drop 0,06% ? It seems still not to follow the pattern as expected.
How about the recovery part? Is that implemented and how? Is it by Equity or dollar % of balance pr. pip?
I know that i have many questions, but I really like this to work like a charm :32:
what i ment was that if it deploys primers at 0.06% , then maybe it should not disable them again as soon as its bellow 0.06% , because then it might not deploy enough primers to turn the drawdown around, but if the % for disabling primers where also a variable, then we could try with something like 0.04% for disabling primers again
No problems. keep asking queries. My mistake I didnt explain as I have done before. I answer below.
If start capital is $3000 then it should work with a percent of 0,4%. But it doesn’t. How can that be? Is there a calculation error somewhere in the code?
Check your leverage. I have a leverage of 1:200 and I put 0.25 in the percent to start with 0.01. Keep increasing percent values until you find that it is opening 0.01 lots.
Is the new “Equitydrop” actual the dollar % of balance drawdown each pip? or is it if equity drop 0,06% ? It seems still not to follow the pattern as expected.
The equity drop follows your formula of {(Buylots - SellLots)/Equityhigh}*100.
I dont know how the value of 0.06 came about. I would like to know.
How about the recovery part? Is that implemented and how? Is it by Equity or dollar % of balance pr. pip?
Whenever primers are started (i.e. when equity drop of 0.06% occurs), the highest equity is noted.The EA keeps placing primers until this equity value is surpassed again. Once that equity level is broken, primers will be set to false.
I noticed a small error in the primersize calculation. I was calculating PrimerSize = {(OpenBuyLots-OpenSellLots)/3}. But this formula should not include the open primers. Only the normal Buys and sells should be included.
I have rectified it. Use this version instead.
This balances equity when extreme downtrends or uptrends happen. But the problem happens when the trend reverses and two of the open primers cause heavy drawdowns. Those open primers need to be countered with bigger primers in the opposite direction to balance it.
All your advices needed.
There should only be one open primer to survive when the rate turns. If you add a long primer at 1.5000 and a second at 1.5030, you should also set stop loss of the first primer to 1.5004. That way the first one will close with +4 pips. As long as you do that for all primers in profit, only the top/bottom one wil remain open. I’ts kind of annoying since primers are usually caught on the +4SL since it’s such a small retracement, but without this you’ll get stuck with escalating primers trying to balance each other while massively increasing units open and burning up you margin. The 0.004 just cover the spread cost.
i still think an equity % for turning primers off again might be better than the “equity high” funktion, as the primer deployment looks kind of weird in this version… or is that just me?
what do you think webzone?
EDIT: im down to 0.01 in my test, and finally it overcame the first handfull of primer deployments… lets see how long it will run (and work)
Yes, I’ve seen that, but I think WebZone made a mistake. The first primer is set to +10 only after 60 pips in profit, but starting from the second primer they are secured at +10 after 40 pips in profit. The gap in the first primer allows for 2 open primers on retraction, but why should that be allowed? I would much rather carry only one primer against me if possible. Which is what you get if you lock in +10 at 30 (with opening of second primer), +40 at 60 (with opening of third primer) and +70 at 90 (with opening of fourth primer).
Experience may suggest that carrying two primers against you is better in the long term than having primers close too quickly due to close SL, but mathematically I see no reason to carry two primers. The “basics of using primers” doc uses +5 instead of +10, but no difference is made between the first and all other primers.
I just know that it was webzone that wrote down the documentation in the first place, so i dont doubt him, but he could maybe have made a typo… lets see what he says
okay, buy trying to import the tick data the other day, i have messed up the history in my main MT4, so im making a new test in another MT4 with 0.01 and it looks much better, so just forget my last post on the euity high funktion, i will post results on the new test once its done
Seems like we are close to having a functioning EA!
Of course it would be nice if we can fix the escalation so maximize potential profits, but even the 0.01 version is something I can live with. The exponential curve is right there, so its just a question of time before we own the world :50:
Oh and regarding my earlier comment: Yes I am of course not testing this EA on a live money account, but with a live demo instead of back-testing. Will try to turn off alarms tomorrow.
Saving up to start a EUR/USD channel in a month or so
It is correct that in the original outcast for the hourglass formation, we sticked to only one primer open on retracements. But we have experienced that often when the rate is going up or down, there often is some retracements of 10-40 pips. and by keeping two primers we make a margin of 50 pips. If it is a human being making the trades. Then You would be making decisions depending on fundamentals, and other signals. But the robot don’t care about fundamentals. That’s why I have suggested 50 pips. It might be possible to make that part adjustable as well. But that is some thing that we should wait till the EA working perfect…
So that’s the reason for carrying two primers back.
[B]And for some more questions.[/B]
My MT4 account is using x100 leverage. so on a $3000 account the EA should work with tradesize 0,4% but it needs 0,6% to work. And that’s why I asked.
[B]And another question to this part:[/B]
The equity drop follows your formula of {(Buylots - SellLots)/Equityhigh}*100.
I dont know how the value of 0.06 came about. I would like to know.
[B]Shouldn’t “Equityhigh” have been “AccountBalance”?[/B]
The 0,06% drawdown have been calculated on a lot. It should secure that Equity under normal circumstances should not go below 40%, so there would be room for extreme cases with a lot of retracements when using primers
[B]And for some more questions.[/B]
My MT4 account is using x100 leverage. so on a $3000 account the EA should work with tradesize 0,4% but it needs 0,6% to work. And that’s why I asked.
Will do some calculations and try to find out exact reasons.
[B]And another question to this part:[/B]
The equity drop follows your formula of {(Buylots - SellLots)/Equityhigh}*100.
I dont know how the value of 0.06 came about. I would like to know.
[B]Shouldn’t “Equityhigh” have been “AccountBalance”?[/B]
Just replace the word [B]“EquityHigh”[/B] in the function [B]CheckEquityDrop[/B] to [B]“AccountBalance()”[/B].
I think that makes more sense. Will test it.
The 0,06% drawdown have been calculated on a lot. It should secure that Equity under normal circumstances should not go below 40%, so there would be room for extreme cases with a lot of retracements when using primers
2000 USD is the start amount.
Time is set to 5 - the amount of years.
Growth-factor is 0,42 (42%)
So… it would take 14,5 years to reach a million dollars. From 2000 USD starting point.
Its better than nothing, but the growth is nowhere near the promises given out by the 500 / 750 step-systems…
I hope we can tweak this to increase escalation. Alternatively I would have to think that the big gain promises we have seen are sort of hot air.
But hey - I am not unhappy at all. On the contrary: With a 43% annual growth-rate we are still looking at some of the most steady solid and rapid increases you can find in investment-business.
with start capital of $3000
and using 0,6% (only because something does so that I can’t use 0,4%) it still starts out with 0,01 lots
The test starts from after the big drop in 2009 till now and it didn’t get stopped out. So we are getting closer.
