I don’t think reopening primers is the way to go as you’ll guarantee carrying multiple primers against you. This logic is easily seen in trying to use a single primer. If you open a primer of the same size as all the regs, with no SL and no TP, then you have neutralized fall in equity. Simple to code, wish it could work. If you had a guarantee that this primer would be open for at least spread distance (so SL would be positive) it would be the easiest thing ever, but of course rate will at some point turn after 1 pip and then your channel will need an opposing primer half the distance away of the channel width you used to have. This will then repeat until the channel is basically just primers.
Starting small and only increasing primer size “as needed” based on other primers, distance to next primer and equity failure point must be figured out.
So how would Michael calculate these two scenarios?
1: If P1 is size x and retracement is 50 pips, P2 would be placed at x pips with size y.
1: If P1 is size x and retracement is 80 pips, P2 would be placed at x pips with size y.
Very important question right there. I tried to ask Michael if sub- and mini-primers are needed for the system, or just a way to increase profits a little quicker, but haven’t seen a reply yet.
My impression is that main primers should be enough (if sized and placed correctly) and the rest is more a question of making the most out of opportunities as M doesn’t always use sub-primers, but of course, he does so many extra trades and the copy system at eToro is so bad it’s really difficult to tell sometimes.
Very important question right there. I tried to ask Michael if sub- and mini-primers are needed for the system, or just a way to increase profits a little quicker, but haven’t seen a reply yet.
My impression is that main primers should be enough (if sized and placed correctly) and the rest is more a question of making the most out of opportunities as M doesn’t always use sub-primers, but of course, he does so many extra trades and the copy system at eToro is so bad it’s really difficult to tell sometimes.
Re
D[/QUOTE]
But he also told on openbook back when channeltraders kept hidding SL with the 30 pip distance that they should use sub Primers to catch up… But you are right, If all goes well, it does not sound like sub primers are needed…
i can try theese out tomorrow, or whait if you want to look over the code first?
it dossent matter to me if i have to wait another day to increase lot size
Zepp,
I have checked the code and also tested it in demo. The problem is rectified.
However pls note that although the EA will take care of escalating lot sizes, there is nothing programmed for decrement of lot sizes. Something to keep in mind.
Pls be careful while using it on LIVE accounts.
Zepp,
I have checked the code and also tested it in demo. The problem is rectified.
However pls note that although the EA will take care of escalating lot sizes, there is nothing programmed for decrement of lot sizes. Something to keep in mind.
Pls be careful while using it on LIVE accounts.
LOL, always remember { } brackets… added the following under the sendmail command, but forgot the brackets
PlaySound(“alert.wav”);
SendNotification(“Greenland EA Drawdown level reached”);
this resulted in alarms everytime the marked moved
CC:
found a new one…
when increasing lot size, the EA both places an 0.01 order along side the existing 0.01 trades, but it also makes an order for a 0.02 trade covering the same range… so now there is 0.04 lot on a range, instead of 0.02
so maybe a check, that if there is placed a trade along side another trade, then there should not be placed a normal sized trade
That was the problem with Rev 0-1 which i posted yesterday.
I have posted Rev 0-2 today which avoids that problem. Let me know if you are facing the same with Rev0-2.
it seems that its only the trade closest to the current rate that gets a both an 0.01 trade, AND an 0.02 …
could it be something with the check made with the “dist” variable, to see if there is already a trade, and it does not find a trade with the new lot size?
and another question… when it makes an extra trade, so that for instans we have 2 trades with 0.01 with the same TP, when that is hit, will the EA open 1 new order at TP like it should, or does it look at how many trades where closed, and therefore opens 2 new orders?
i have put it at the same link as i sent you yesterday…
i have run the EA, then as said canceled all trades, and restarted the EA, so trades are showing up more than once in the history…
but the one that looks funny is the ones at 1.51019 & 1.51020 , where i tried to remove the 0.02 size trade (because there is a buy trade open at 1.51028 of 0.01 , and a order of 0.01 at 1.51019 )
Hi Zepp,
Your settings look ok. I just tested it again on demo and i post screenshots below:
Scenario 1: EA started with below settings:
2013.05.28 17: 53:44 Greenland strategy with fixed lot sizes and primers REV0-2 EURUSD,H1 inputs: UseNormalTrades=true; Lots=0.1; Risk=0.1; TP=500; Dist=100; UseSL=false; SL=0; Slip=30; Check=100; ChannelTop=1.35; ChannelBottom=1.25; UsePrimer=true; PrimerLots=0.4; UsePrimerSL=false; PrimerSL=2000; PrimerStep=300; PrimerTP=1000; PrimerLockin=100; DrawDownAlert=40;
this time there is the sell trade i have marked, and the trade bellow it…
the rate has gone above the buy from before, so now i dont get exactly the same result as before… with the trade matching an already open trade…
EDIT: just noticed… the buy orders looks messed up to
Hi all, I got some really specific info from Michael about primers today. I still have a couple of blanks, but I find it prudent to wait a couple of days before nagging him any more
Anyway, here is the scoop on primers directly from the horses mouth:
At 40% equity (we can use the existing balance calc for the trigger), the first main primer is set.
Main primers are 3 times the size of your largest regular order (so not 1/3 of imbalance like we have it now), TP 150.
The next main primer should be set above/below the next support/resistance level, update SL on previous primers.
We must use secondary and sub-primers in addition to main primers.
Secondary primers are half the size of main primers and placed every 80 pips with 100 TP. SL is set as new secondary opens.
Sub-primers are half the size of secondary primers and placed every 20 pips, with 20 TP (so no need for SL).
Regardless of whether we can code a good solution for support and resistance lines or have to do update primer distance manually, there will have to be some sort of maximum distance for main primers. In a straight drop with no retracements, 1 main primer is not big enough to save P/L even with secondaries and subs hitting TP. M has used 50, 60, and 80 pips as examples several times so a dummy variable to use before retracements are spotted would probably be in that general area.
I’m still a little unclear on main primer TP. It strikes me as odd that TP would not be dependent on how far apart primers are placed. I think the 150 TP has more to do with recalculating primer size to make an informed decision about current equity, but in the interview M said that primers grow in size while he was very specific about 3x regular trade today (asked him twice). I’ll probably take up that question again later.
Also, I do not yet know if secondary and sub-primers should be re-opened for retracements. Maybe ZeppDK has the answer to that one?
sorry, im not sure about this, i can only say that i have read it many times on openbook that sub-primers is also used if SL of main primers are hit, so my guess is that we should re-open them if we get big retractions and then returns in the primer direction, but that is just my guess, so better ask Michael to be sure… could be fun if we could get this right, so i dont like to be the point of failure
I don’t know M as well as you do, and since I have a rather intense personality on the best of days, I’ve learnt to give people some space. Maybe you could help out with some questions so they don’t all come from me and I don’t start hammering him?
In any case, what do you think of the list so far? I don’t know how to program all this stuff, but I certainly think we’re getting closer to full understanding.
