Hmm… I still get errors when running it on a demo-account:
Set primer: 0
Suggestions?
is that the error?
and what is your settings for the EA?
Yes thats the error…
And my settings are just the default ones. Only I set the lot size to 0.01.
Edit: Might have stopped now after I restarted it with alarm set to off…
I hardcoded an EA to add a bunch of long primers and ran it against the false tick data that just goes up, and it seems to support the systems ability to control equity through primers alone. The EA cancels regular longs while long primers are open. Not sure why no shorts are placed, but that’s probably just because I’m not a good programmer.
Look at the equity, and it’s regularity as the primers open and close bringing it ever so slightly upwards.
According to the log file, the primers start a little late and there’s no explanation of why everything collapses at the end, but it ends where the last manual primer ends, so a correctly programmed system that adds primers as needed should fix this. With the last primer reaching TP, the balance would be something like 260.000 short to 0 longs in my manual system so I assume a massive deduction from margin is called for to cover it, hence the stop out.
I’m not sure I understand margin, but I assume the hedging means you don’t actually have to lock up 10$ for your short + 10$ for your long, but rather that the short is “secured” by the long, hence very little money is actually locked up. Have I got that right?
Re
D
Would be interesting to see the graph for this move, just to see what makes the equity go down in the beginning and end. The actual rise seems to work ok with the primers.
The data used is my false tick data that increases 1 pip per every 1M. The intial fall in equity is due to differences between longs and shorts. They start out as 1000 vs. 1000, then each 50 pips the short increase while the longs reach TP and starts over. So the fall is due to 1000/1000, 2000/1000, 3000/1000 etc. until 0.06% drawdown where long primers evens out the balance. The final collapse happens when the last of my long primers reach TP. I just set up 50 primers spaced 30 pips apart all at once since I can’t figure out how to do ut properly in code, so when they run out, suddenly the balance is something like 260.000 shorts/0 longs = kaboom. The point was a test of the system fundamentals.
Re
D
Thanks for the clarification. Well at least we now know that ideally the primers should be able to remedy even the most extreme situations in terms of trending markets.
Yes, I hope that is so, but it also seems to indicate that (longs-shorts)/3 gives primers that are slightly too small. While primers are running full tilt in my test it maintains equity with a tiny, itty, bitty increase. A retracement leaving 1 or even 2 primers open could still cause a big enough balance indifference to cause dangerous drawdowns, if my current theory about margin is correct.
If so, my earlier idea about the importance of only having 1 primer in each end is wrong, and primer sizes should be bigger.
On the other hand, this is an extreme example that might lead me to wrongful conclusions, once again…
Re
D
Included is an Excel sheet where I manually set up trades from 1.5000 and a direct rise to 1.5600 where a long primer is opened. Then a direct fall back to 1.5000 where a short primer is opened. (And then another rise to 1.5600 just in case 
Can anyone tell me how to calculate profits & loss? Equity = Balance + P&L, but I can’t figure out how to calculate P&L.
Re
D
CC
Is there any news about the progress?
Do You need help or advise with anything?
Just let me know
I would very much like to know the exact calculations for primer lot sizes.
Re
D
When using primers You will most of the time have 3 primers open. And for every 30 pips you will have 4 primers open for 10 pips
lets say the trend is downwards and you have 1 sell position open of 0,01 lot
and you have 12 buy positions open of 0,01 lots each
that will mean that you have a drawdown of 0,11 lots
then the math will be like this.
0,11/3 =0,0367
This result will need to be rounded up to nearest x,xx that means that the result will be 0,04 pips for each primer
then when ever you have 3 primers open you will earn 0,12 lots and you will have a drawdown of 0,11 lots. So you will have a profit of 0,01 lots
and for 10 pips of every 30 pips you will have a profit of 0,05 lots
There will of cause be some situations where the primers don’t get activated perfect. For instance if a lot of retracements happens. But a lot of times they will work like a charm, and in the long run it will keep the channel balanced. so that you can earn money on ups and downs. That is also why they are started at 0,06% drawdown, to make sure that even if they get spoiled a lot of times. Then they will still balance the channel.
to be sure that you will be able to carry the trades back in the opposite direction, you need to maximum carry two primers back up. thats the reason for the 50 pips trailingstop.
How are the primers currently calculated compared to the presentation webzone has just given above? In which ways does the current system differ?
I think the system sounds ok, except that I think the current method of avoiding having more than 1 primer will reduce risk for turning rates. Currently Viking is left with 2 large primers on his channel and the rate has turned, with half his equity bound in keeping these primers alive. Such a situation should be avoided if possible, and I think the current system is programmed to never carry more than 1 primer.
What is lacking I guess is the exact calculations for deployment, closing and sizing.
Kent,
Currently the EA is working as below:
- Start placing primers when balance per pip falls to 0.06% (user adjustable). Please confirm this part is functioning properly.
- Place primers every 30 pips (user adjustable)
- Lock in 10 pips on first primer when 3rd primer is opened.
- Trail stop by 30 pips on 1st primer after 3rd is opened until TP.
- Primers are stopped once equity reaches to a higher level than the drop.
I understand you are asking for the EA to stop placing primers based on balance rather than equity. Shall we set the same logic of balance drop per pip% (user adjustable - lets say 0.03%). - The EA decides the direction of trend based on number of buys to number of sells. That means if more buys are opened then open sell primer and vice versa.
- It calculates primer sizes based on the logic that you have mentioned. The rounding off to nearest lot size is debatable and I will implement Dennis’ advice.
I need you to confirm if all the above points are correct. then i will revise the EA and publish soon.
Using the manual setup I have in Excel, I go from 1.5000 to 1.5600 before needing a long primer (0 long/13000 short). Using primers of 1/3 of the difference 4.333 (rounded down to 4.000 units). Suppose a complete turn at 1.5600. I will now trigger a short primer when returning to 1.5000 (no retracements for simplicities sake) also of 4.333. So my channel is now 1.5000 to 1.5600 with a primer in both ends. Adding primers to either end as rate moves beyond these levels will expand the channel, and any retracements inside the channel will give profits. So far, so good.
However, if I carry 2 open long primers (8.000 in this case) with me downwards, I would need a short primer at a higher level than 1.5000, namely 1.5100. I haven’t filled in the data for another upturn yet, but I would assume that in the same way, bringing 2 open short primers with me from 1.5100 will mean I once again would need long primers but this time below 1.5600 as we have basically escalated trading volume and thereby decreasing the effect of the original long primers.
So it looks to me like having 2 open primers in each end will actually decrease the size of the channel as 0.06 drawdown will be hit ever closer to each former border. (Channel size here being defined as the distance between uppermost open sell primer and lowermost open buy primer). I therefore think only one primer should be left open on a rate turn, and that the first primer should be locked in at +10 when the second primer is placed.
As for stopping primers, I don’t have numbers yet on continued moves, but I don’t think equity should be the defining variable. As primers close, the opposing side will add 2 trades every 100 pips, so the balance should be recalculated in some way. I’ll come back when I’ve set up those numbers.
Re
D
Crisscross: Could you maybe keep the current equity-drop as an option in the EA, rather than based on balance. As a switchable-option, so that we can continue testing both versions against each other - at least until we have figured out what gives the best results.
I.e. we can try with primers based on balance as default in next EA version, but having the option to disable it in favor of equity would be good.
I.e. just as you can choose to trade a specific lot-size or a specific percentage size.
why change on a strategy that have been traded manually for years with success?
it would be better to get the EA to mimic the original system as much as possible, so it should be calculated from balance (as in the “do i need primers yet” spreadsheet) 
Response to CC
when balance per pip falls [B]by[/B] 0.06%
Good
Should also be adjustable so people can adjust to their aggressive nevau :13:
Should be 50 pips…to carry 2 primers… Should also be adjustable so people can adjust to their aggressive nevau :13:
Your proposal sound good.
Should might only count for an adjustable number of candles, to avoid the old trend. (i’m not sure about this. So lets wait and see if it works as it is)
The big example that Dennis supplied (post 324) is based on the worst example possible.
it is based on a drawdown number that is dividable by 3 and that’s why the primers gets too small. but with every other drawdown sizes than those divided by 3 they will be large enough. And in the long run my example will do just fine, as 2 out of 3 times they will make profits and 1 out of 3 it will balance.
So I don’t think it is the right decision, to use an other logic. But please post the logic, so that I can have a look at it to see if it will work.
it would be a weird pair, where the rate continues to go straight up/down/up/down… you will most likely get alot retractions and turns along the way, so i dont think that your conclution is accurate either… sometimes you properbly would have a primerzone at an earlier state, but then again, it might also be at a later state if there has been alot of earnings in the mid-range
That should be an other EA and not the Hourglass/Greenland EA