If you never extend the channel then you will go bust if the rate settles in a new range, based on swap alone. There has to be some mathematical limit that triggers expansion. F.ex. if a primers reaches TP, then we can extend with one grid row. The problem with that is that you can have several primer taken out at +10, then later what would have been P7 reaches TP. By the former rule you would suddenly extend the channel by 200 pips due to a single primer.
Alternatively you could set channel borders at first primer and only recalulate once those primers are taken out by regular lot sizes reaching primer lot size.
Or it might be possible to calculate max channel width based on account balance (which I have failed several times to achieve).
There are many ways of doing this, but which one is mathematically correct according to the system?
You can’t think like that for the EA unless you start adding other aspects such as indicators. Code will do what you tell it to do, not what you think it should do, or meant it to do, so we need mathematical reasoning and pristine clearity.
You can’t think like that for the EA unless you start adding other aspects such as indicators. Code will do what you tell it to do, not what you think it should do, or meant it to do, so we need mathematical reasoning and pristine clearity.
Re
D[/QUOTE]
You are right, does someone have an AI they dont use… Hahaha…
I begin to understand why viking Said it would be difficult to get an EA to trade the system, as there is some human factors that we need a recipe for…
Webzone, do you got some mathematics we can use to un-humanize the process?
It doesn’t have to be AI level, but if WebZone could come up with a formula that calculates the cost of covering SL for placement every x pips in a grid y wide, then the EA can make an informed decision about when to expand the grid. Our current drawdown calculations are fine for balance, but it doesn’t answer this question. Human decision making skills will trump the EA as we are really good at seperating relevant from irrelevant data, but “you need x$ to safely cover y lots for z distance (rinse and repeat for each grid step)” is math, and the EA can do that splendidly, once we plug in the formula. I’m thinking an array filled with all the open trades and then we calculate total cost versus current Ask/Bid and make an informed decision based on that. (Maybe it would be enough with equity-balance = P&L, but I don’t think so).
WebZone: Do you have any instructions on when to extend the channel?
I’ve been running a test from January 2008 with 2K balance. In March I hit long primer territory at 2.01164 and set that as my ChannelTop. I make some money on primers, then the rate falls until May where the first short primer is placed at 1.9414, ChannelBottom. Rate moves up and down until August when more short primers are triggered. I survive the Lehman Brothers, but by the end of August my short primers are a whopping 1.300 pips below the lowest regular trade and any time spent in that range is costing me swap so equity is falling (also primers could make more money, think I have a bug there). It wouldn’t cost me anything to place new pending trades in most of this 1.3000 pips range, as we now know that the rate will continue to fall all the way down to 1.37 over the next six months, with fairly little retracement, but there is some.
So, the correct way to start adding regular trades in this scenario is…?
Oh yeah, the “bug” is, if you calculate primer lot sizes based solely on count of open units without taking into account how far away they are (as in the scenario above), primer lot sizes won’t increase even though P&L is plummeting.
I can see that there is a MA in the EA now.
I don’t like that, because it ruins the mathematics.
The MA will make different result depending of witch time period You choose to use.
So we have to make something depending on mathematics instead of MA
Maybe we should re think this a bit
The way it decides trade sizes i think is correct.
But when to place primers is the big issue.
So here comes a new scenario that we could try to code in:
Let’s say that we are going to have max. two primer zones. One in the top and one in the bottom of the channel.
so lets say that the EA has put some buy primers, and then the rate goes back down. Then there should be no buy primers below the lowest primer. (the primer size is still calculated the same way as it is now)
Then when the rate goes down below 200 pips below the lowest remaining buy primer. Then the sell primer zone is activated. And between these two zones there will only be normal trades. And every time the rate goes back in either f the primer zones it will only make primers.
When ever the normal trades become as big as the primers then the EA will recalculate the primer size and make two new primer zones.
I do know that it takes the system away from the standard rules. But I think that it might work. We might want to give it a bit different name so that we doesn’t mix them together.
The reason for this suggestion, is that it seems that the EA gets confused about the 0,06% and 0,02% recovery, as it makes primers to be put within other primers, and that way we run out of equity.
The part with deciding the trend direction, also makes the system not secure on automated basics, as it is possible that it will make a wrong decision.
If you could actually show this math we might reach the goal. I’m doing a paralell development that is strictly following the rules, but primers aren’t sufficiently documented. Resetting channel when regular trades reaches primer lot size doesn’t work in situations where long trends leaves a large gap between regular trades and the oldest primer (like shorts in August 2008). You will just end up with a large area of no trades. Even if the balance is intact and equity is neutralized, there are no profits for weeks in this test and swap alone will kill the channel.
Well - we need to fix the primers. I can’t code myself, but will post a few test-runs so we can maybe identify some issues.
I also saw that Viking posted a few comments about primers (that the TP shouldn’t necesssarily be 30 pips etc.)
Alternatively one can do primers manually and just do the regular trades with the EA, but… not sure I trust this sufficiently to actually trade it live yet.
Frawan… You Got that wrong… TP on primers is 100… The 30 pip is The gap between when To open primers… Where The gap between normal trades is 50 pip… And yes, when there is human interaction, you would look at how The marked is moving, and make a decision If you had to use 30 pip, or maybe 40 pips between The primers, and you could also tweak The primer sizes… But to have The EA take human decisions is not an option, it needs mathematic Parameters
You should read the bottom part with the example again. The retracements are a massive hassle with short distance primers. He doesn’t give the actual calculations for anything, but this info has gotten me a lot closer to a workable solution. He also specifically disagrees with WebZone’s two unsecured primers policy.
You should read the bottom part with the example again. The retracements are a massive hassle with short distance primers. He doesn’t give the actual calculations for anything, but this info has gotten me a lot closer to a workable solution. He also specifically disagrees with WebZone’s two unsecured primers policy.
Re
D[/QUOTE]
Yes, 30 pip between primers is properbly to close because of retractions… Viking talkes about increasing this gab, AND setting TP to 300 NOT 30 pip
There is a pretty Big difference between Frawans 30 pip, and vikings 300 pip If you ask me
Have to change both of course, but not getting stuck in “new primer every 30 pips” has released a breadth of possibilities. Once I figure out clearer rules for primer sizing and spacing, it will be very interesting to see the results.
Have to change both of course, but not getting stuck in “new primer every 30 pips” has released a breadth of possibilities. Once I figure out clearer rules for primer sizing and spacing, it will be very interesting to see the results.
Re
D[/QUOTE]
You are right, and ofcourse it can be solved by getting The relation right, and then we can also get back to only having 1 primer that can go into minus… Like in a manual Channel…
My point was simply that Im shure viking would never talk about a 30 pip TP for primers ;-D
And then i guessed that frawan was refering to a talk on openbook i had with viking The other Day, where he talked About The gap between primers
@Frawan
here it is m8, its super simple, it looks for an increase in AccountBalance, and plays an audio alert, sends a push message, and an email (if you have thoose 2 configered in the MT4 config)
just compile it, and add it to a chart you dont use
this Little EA has nothing directly to do with the channel, but as its super simple, and it could be fun to integrate these couple of code lines into the greenland EA https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5267610/TP_Bell.mq4
