Guys,
Attached new EA which will place primers with the help of ChannelTop & ChannelBottom borders.
Also added the Check variable.
The EA should send daily reports and also mails when drawdown level is reached.
Have a look, test it in Demo and give your comments.
Regards
CC
Greenland strategy with fixed lot sizes and Primers REV0.zip (4.27 KB)
Cool stuff, thanks CC.
One question, what if we stop the EA and reopen it when trades are already open and orders already placed? Does it work out-of-the-box?
Also, if I understood correctly, we need 2000usd starting amount for GBUSD, 50pips grid. And 3000usd for same pair, 30pips grid.
What about EURUSD, 50pips grid?
Hi guys, I am happy to ssee that you are getting closer to a solution in regards to the primers. The advantage of an EA is that it has got no emotions, this is namely what is the hardest for a manual trader. But also it is correct that it can´t base the calculations based on the news, as first of all news are manipulated mostly, also you will see many scenarios and explanations, most of them contradicting news, so it takes experience to "read between the lines " . Also I guess that a pc can´t actually read the news itself. 
. I don´t know much about EA´s and pc´s , so I do all my trading manually. As you have seen then the suggestions about how far distance you will set the TP´s is depending on the market movements. Especially of course the primers, which is a drag to figure out, due to the many retraments we have seen in the cable recently. A lot of SL hunting was also going on. Now first of all how many pips distance should you have between the TP´s . The 50 pips were suggested for traders which can´t always be at their pc, but were trading part time. Especially in Europe it is difficult if you are not full time, as the European and the US market between 14.00 and 16.00 GMT are the most active and traders who also have a job, will mostly be working at these times. Now it works fine in a volatile market where there is a lot of movement. But of course slower when the market is quiet. A pattern which I have often seen in a quiet market is that the cable is ranging within a 20-30 pips range for days , maybe shifting to a lower or higher level and then repeating itself. This you will see clearly on the 5 and 15 minutes chart. This is why candlesticks are mostly used in these situations. So if there´s any way you can make the EA figure out these patterns, it would be a great advantage, to make the most profits. It is not so important how big distance you have between the tp´s but to figure out the patterns. For instance if the same pattern in a slow market repeat itself twice, ranging 20 to 30 pips , it will normally do so at least 5 or 6 times, maybe more. It can shift a bit as I said moving a little bit upwards or downwards within this time spa which can be around a couple of days. Now with the primers. When you saw the cable dropping from 1.5600 to 1.5300 it basically didn´t retrace, which can easily be seen in a one way hourglass like BigBry , he traded at this time with a 20 pip distance and only 12.5% of the TP´s got hit. So normally there is less retracement in the middle of the range than when it gets to the bottom, 1.5300 - 15025 . You saw it going to the support at 1.5225 and then basically it went without too much downwards movement up to 1.5120 . So the closer you get to the bottom the more retracement. It can be advised to make less primers but let them run for as long as you can until you need to close them to extend the SL´s. Then set the tp in the SL zone and let the primer run, then every 80 pips make a secondary primer with tp every 100 pips. However don´t let the main primer run for more than 150 pips, thereafter renew it with appropriate size, to balance out the account or if you have the expectations of a new range, to turn the equity. Then make a lot of sub-primers with a tp of 20 pips, to add to the profits. But remember always to have a minimum of 150 pips to the nearest SL in case of a run if you trade for instance on eToro. The system is much easier to trade when using margin. . This is just a brief explanation, I will try to make it more specific and gve concrete examples later this week or next weekend. I am sorry for not being here so much, but my time is quite limited. But you are getting closer and you always have Zepp here, who has been a great help, so thank you to you and also the other guys helping out. You were asking also how many losses there generally are in a channel. We had an incident on eToro where some SL´s got hit when Moody´s announced that they lowered the credit rating for the UK , Friday evening after eToro closed. This is then not in our hands and the accounts I had on margin, only made profits on the primers. But this is the ONLY loss the Greenland made on eToro since April 2012 . I make an average of 150-200 trades a month, so it would mean about around 2500 trades were in green and 0 loss, if you don´t calculate the “Moody downgrading” Have a great week all and keep up the good work !!.
Hi Michael. We could need some more specifics. Changing primer placement based on retracement patterns can be handled by changing variables in a live account (though not in backtesting of course), but we have some aspects which aren’t clear enough.
Firstly primer sizing. “Two is less, three is more” is not exactly accurate. I’ve had some success with (sum regulars/2.5) and rounded up, but (sum regulars/3) seems to be a little too small. When retracements happen, unless you leave 2 main primers unsecured, the free margin falls too low.
On the other hand you have mentioned “starting with small primer then increasing their size”. Could you be more specific on that?
My biggest problem right now is deciding on primer size vs. distance. In live trades you would have more time and flexibility than in a backtest, but the closer we can come to an actual a+b=c thing, the better, even if we have to change variables manually.
Adding in sub- and mini-primers are difficult code wise, but can be done. However, are these a must, or just a way to make more money quicker?
How is the manual lot growth chart calculated?
Re
Dennis
My biggest problem right now is deciding on primer size vs. distance. In live trades you would have more time and flexibility than in a backtest, but the closer we can come to an actual a+b=c thing, the better, even if we have to change variables manually.
I’d love to see an answer to that too. There’s just a lot to take in. 
Hi CC,
i found an error, when increasing lot size manually from lets say 0.01 to 0.02 , then the EA places orders along side the existing orders on 0.01 … so far so good, but then it cancels theese orders again (or some of them, maybe because they are far away??), then it sees that it need to place orders of 0.01 again, and the cycle continues… so my history log exploded with canceled orders 
EDIT: same error exist in the EA without primers, so its an “old” error we have just overlooked until now 
Put “//” in front of the function call DeleteFarAwayPendingOrders() and try again. Let me know.
it is already // out… i get the following when compiling:
Function “DeleteFarAwayPendingOrders” is not referenced and will be removed from exp-file
so cant be that one making trouble
Let me check.
I could need some feedback from somebody else on my work on primers so far…
General idea of primers:
P1 slows down P/L fall. P2 slows it down some more. P3 starts P/L increase. P3 has to trigger before free margin hits 0. Guideline: “Turn equity within 150 pips”.
Problem:
Retracements close primers and imbalance returns.
Specifics:
1: There is a certain drawdown price per pip as P1 opens. From that we can calculate how far rate can drop until free margin/equity is 0. P1 will extend that by a calculable distance, so we could get a number from this for distance to “point of no return”.
2: If P1 is hit by SL and P2 is twice the size, P2 will maintain the same rate of decline that P1 alone would have achieved, so “nothing has changed”, but remaining distance to collapse point, hence size need to increase to make up for smaller distance.
3: P3 will need to be bigger than P2 since there is less distance to collapse point, but not twice the size, as we now have secured profits from P1 for at least 1 primer step.
4: P4 will need to be bigger than P3 again, but minus P12 steps + P21 step.
Or will it? We can get new primers with 0 profits from the previous ones with the right level of repeated retracements. We can reopen closed primers after large retracements, but we would then loose the trailing stoploss security and can end up with multiple open primers against the trend.
Conclusion:
Primers need to grow, and should be calculated from size * remaining distance - other open primers + “security buffer”.
Channel extensions:
I use a trailing stoploss for primers and update channelTop/Bottom (which decides where regs are placed) based on the highest short primers SL and the lowest long primers SL. If we change regs to neutral positioning (exact same open price), then retracements from short primers will mean that Ask will trigger a newly added pending long before the first pending short, and opposite with retracements from long primers Bid will hit new pending short first (Ask is always higher than Bid). This will at least improve P/L a little. Not sure about the consequences for regs in general inside the grid.
Re
D
Zepp,
Post the history log pls.
D,
Very confused with your post.
have just sent you a private message with a link to my log
Received, read and understood what is the problem. Will try to rectify asap.
Well, I’m saying that “sum of difference between regular orders/3” placed at a fixed interval doesn’t work for primers and it’s not what Michael is doing either, despite anything the system dox says. We need to find a better solution where decisions are made based on the current situation, not what it used to be when P1 opened some time back. We’ve become so obsessed with the existing code in this thread that I think we’ve lost focus on mastering the system. We have to nail down that first.
Re
D
Zepp,
Attached new version.
I think this should be ok. If not then I will have to check in detail tomorrow.
Hold on for a day 
CC
Greenland strategy with fixed lot sizes and primers REV0-1.zip (4.01 KB)
Greenland strategy with fixed lot size No primers Rev 0-1.zip (2.72 KB)
Well, I’m saying that “sum of difference between regular orders/3” placed at a fixed interval doesn’t work for primers and it’s not what Michael is doing either, despite anything the system dox says. We need to find a better solution where decisions are made based on the current situation, not what it used to be when P1 opened some time back. We’ve become so obsessed with the existing code in this thread that I think we’ve lost focus on mastering the system. We have to nail down that first.
D,
Michael places primers discretionarily.
Retracements change from time to time, hence we will never be able to come out with the Holy grail primer lot size. What we will have to do is to keep track of the market and change the primerstep or primerTP randomly.
This EA will help those who have not mastered the art of primers by placing at regular steps without emotions and keep the the channel alive, but to make serious money one has to rake in pips with primers/subprimers etc and the normal trade should keep going too.
Re
D[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. We would need to change primer placement based on retracement patterns yes, but currently we are not taking that into consideration when calculating size. Secondly, Michael does NOT use the same size for new main primers (from eToro interview):
“This is why you use escalating primers. Starting with smaller primers and then increasing them. You basically maybe start with a primer twice the size of your highest average trade. Then you need to focus on how high the retracement levels are . If you see that the retracement averages 50 pips you put the distance between primers at 75 pips. Doing the math is very important so you can change the invested equity if necessary.”
At the moment we’re not “doing the math” as all the focus is only on balancing. “Balance” is important, but should only be used as the trigger for primers as it doesn’t tell the whole story. Let me use an example.
Situation 1: You have a 2K account balance, 1K long and 13K short = 0.06 drawdown, so you open a long primer of 3K.
Situation 2: 200 pips higher you only have one 3K long primer open as the rest was taken out by SL. The current code is based on the wrongful idea that these two situations are the same, since the balance is the same. BUT, profits/loss and hence equity is totally different, significantly worse as a matter of fact as you’ve been carrying 13K shorts up for an additional 200 pips.
We need to address this beyond “hoping there won’t be retracements”. Even with manual intervention for primer distance based on observed retracements patterns, primer size has to be recalculated, just to keep the channel alive, forget the “serious money” part. Placing a 3K primer every 50 pips or 80 pips gives completely different results, so size has to be calculated by the EA when you change placement. (Of course, I’m hoping to calculate retracement patterns automatically too, but that will come later).
Re
D
PS! This is not meant as a slight on your code, just the current lack of understanding about how primers actually works.
I disagree. We would need to change primer placement based on retracement patterns yes, but currently we are not taking that into consideration when calculating size. Secondly, Michael does NOT use the same size for new main primers (from eToro interview):
“This is why you use escalating primers. Starting with smaller primers and then increasing them. You basically maybe start with a primer twice the size of your highest average trade. Then you need to focus on how high the retracement levels are . If you see that the retracement averages 50 pips you put the distance between primers at 75 pips. Doing the math is very important so you can change the invested equity if necessary.”
At the moment we’re not “doing the math” as all the focus is only on balancing. “Balance” is important, but should only be used as the trigger for primers as it doesn’t tell the whole story. Let me use an example.
Situation 1: You have a 2K account balance, 1K long and 13K short = 0.06 drawdown, so you open a long primer of 3K.
Situation 2: 200 pips higher you only have one 3K long primer open as the rest was taken out by SL. The current code is based on the wrongful idea that these two situations are the same, since the balance is the same. BUT, profits/loss and hence equity is totally different, significantly worse as a matter of fact as you’ve been carrying 13K shorts up for an additional 200 pips.We need to address this beyond “hoping there won’t be retracements”. Even with manual intervention for primer distance based on observed retracements patterns, primer size has to be recalculated, just to keep the channel alive, forget the “serious money” part. Placing a 3K primer every 50 pips or 80 pips gives completely different results, so size has to be calculated by the EA when you change placement. (Of course, I’m hoping to calculate retracement patterns automatically too, but that will come later).
Re
D
I agree with you Dennis.
Michael asked if anyone can break this system. The only way this method will fail is if Primers are taken out by TSL as you mention, then eventually the channel will lose.
That is why he says that retracements are important to be observed and fixed primerstep and primerTP will fail in an everchanging market.
maybe one idea would be to reopen a primer once its TSL has been taken out.
Eg P1 placed, 80 pips below P2 placed. P1 SL moved to +10. Lets say now P1 SL hits. Now as you say if price goes back to P2 then we have so many Buy trades moved 80 pips lower creating a drawdown in equity.
What we could do is when P1 SL was hit, then if price moves 10 pips away from P1 SL, we should put a pending primer order just in case price goes to trend again.
I agree we have to think more. I am with you.
[QUOTE=“crisscross1983;494592”]
I agree with you Dennis.
Michael asked if anyone can break this system. The only way this method will fail is if Primers are taken out by TSL as you mention, then eventually the channel will lose.
That is why he says that retracements are important to be observed and fixed primerstep and primerTP will fail in an everchanging market.
maybe one idea would be to reopen a primer once its TSL has been taken out.
Eg P1 placed, 80 pips below P2 placed. P1 SL moved to +10. Lets say now P1 SL hits. Now as you say if price goes back to P2 then we have so many Buy trades moved 80 pips lower creating a drawdown in equity.
What we could do is when P1 SL was hit, then if price moves 10 pips away from P1 SL, we should put a pending primer order just in case price goes to trend again.
I agree we have to think more. I am with you.[/QUOTE]
Then maybe sub primers would Be a better replacement of P1 , so that we dont end up with 2 Big primers that can go in red