Hi guys,
I know some of you have already been playing with the primers. I would like to ask your advice on this particular aspect.
How could I “test” the primers? Do you do it directly in a demo account (using live rates), or do you have some software that generates the rates and trends you want?
I appreciate any advice on this topic of how to test-drive the primers.
PS: I already am comfortable running a normal channel.
Cheers
For primer practicing your best bet (I think) is the included EA. The code isn’t as good as CC’s, but it’s made exactly for practicing with primers. It’s currently only set up for GBP/USD, and there are some other limitations too.
Run it in MT4 using Visual Backtests for whatever time-frame you have tick data for, and when you get to a point where you want to change the variables, you can do that in the function ManualChangesToVariables(). Just copy the lines, set you own date/time and change variables. You need to recompile and start the test all over again, but it will still be much faster than training live in a demo account.
When drawdown hits 40% of equity, the variable PrimersRunning is set to true so that first main primer won’t trigger repeatedly. That is of course a bad solution as you have to set it back to false manually, but I’m working on that. It should still help you get more comfortable with the strategy.
Blank12.zip (7.92 KB)
Re
D
How about running this in MT5, I know that it’s fairly new but has someone done this already with proven numbers? 
[QUOTE=“peleus;502205”]How about running this in MT5, I know that it’s fairly new but has someone done this already with proven numbers? [/QUOTE]
What do you mean with “proven numbers”?
I know of a couple of guys running this system with the MT4 platform my self included…
Why would you go for MT5? MT4 works great for this 
Hi,
As far as I know, MT5 doesn’t allow to trade this way. You can not have a hedged position.
What I think you can do is have 2 EAs, one for each direction, each in different terminals.
MT5 is just a new platform from MetaQuotes. You can’t use the same EA’s as the coding language has changed, and you need to find a broker that offers MT5 servers (and very few do). In regards to same symbol hedging, that has nothing to do with the platform. In the US hedging has been banned by law so any broker falling under the auspicious of the NFA cannot offer hedging regardless of the underlying technical platform used. This EA can only be run against non-US brokers offering MT4.
Re
D
Are you sure? MT5 a step backwards?? - MQL4 forum
It is related directly to the MT5 platform.
PS: For me is not important at all since I use only MT4 but I was answering [B]peleus[/B].
It is in no way a step backwards, it actually looks great and I wish I could use it, but for some reason brokers haven’t started implementing the new servers yet even though it was released several years ago. I think it’s because it’s a lot of work and expenses to implement a new platform and MT4 works good enough.
Re
D
Actually, this is what I was looking for.
Guys, imagine that you can test manually the primers sizing and outcome over and over, using the same time window.
Do your math, start this simulator, see the outcome.
Re-do the math, re-start the simulator (for the same time window and rates) and see the new outcome.
This is in my opinion the missing part of this thread. :53:
And it is only $30.
Here.
Why would you need an MT4 simulator? Don’t you have the real thing?
Re
D
Hmm. I don’t understand why you don’t understand.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
What I had in mind is this. Today, now, I feel in a good mood to try some primers calculations. But how could I test them so it is fast, I can reproduce the same situation again (it is important if I want to test new calculations of the primers for the same timeframe), and I also want to test them manually, not using an EA.
Forward testing is not a solution:
And while trying to find a solution I thought that maybe others are searching for the same thing.
Now, I can go back to the “drop” in the cable from Feb and test my primers skills as much as I want. That is when I lost all the money copying Michael because the SLs didn’t extend.
And in the meantime I found a free tool as well (simulator): here.
If you do not find this information useful, we can drop the discussion here. This was meant only to help the beginners to test the primers calculations.
I don’t understand because a) the simulator is just a limited version of what you already have in MT4 (max 10 trades open so it won’t work for this), and b) I have already posted an EA that follows Micheal’s system and allows you to change any variables to your own specifications/calculations at any specific time chosen by you and then lets you re-run the test in the same time-frame. So what are you missing?
Re
D
[QUOTE=“criscris;502483”]
Hmm. I don’t understand why you don’t understand.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
What I had in mind is this. Today, now, I feel in a good mood to try some primers calculations. But how could I test them so it is fast, I can reproduce the same situation again (it is important if I want to test new calculations of the primers for the same timeframe), and I also want to test them manually, not using an EA.
Forward testing is not a solution:
And while trying to find a solution I thought that maybe others are searching for the same thing.
Now, I can go back to the “drop” in the cable from Feb and test my primers skills as much as I want. That is when I lost all the money copying Michael because the SLs didn’t extend.
And in the meantime I found a free tool as well (simulator): here.
If you do not find this information useful, we can drop the discussion here. This was meant only to help the beginners to test the primers calculations.[/QUOTE]
Use The strategy tester in MT4 with dennis EA, and you have exactly what you say you are looking for… And its free 
As Dennis Said, with his EA you put manual changes into the code, recompile, and rerun your backtests…
Is anyone using the simulation EA? I’m struggling to improve my primer skills. One problem is of course that since you can’t change time-frames in BT it’s difficult to measure retracements, but I’m also having problems with rigid primer sizes. It makes sense to me that the longer the distance between main primers, the bigger the primers have to be, probably main and sub-primers both. Anyone have any thoughts or experience to share?
Re
D
D & Zepp,
I again come back to the above logic of placing primers and the primer sizes. The reason for putting primers at a drawdown of 40% is the following:
Our problem with the above was [B]what if rate turns and goes the other way[/B], then we are carrying a set of primers with us and sooner or later it will cause a drawdown on the opposite side.
Then we will need a set of opposite side primers. Hence instead of expanding the channel we will be reducing the channel.
I have thought about this logic and I think the primer sizing is correct. We need to have three types of primers ( i leave the size of individual type of primer to each) but the total size of primers must be equal to (Total No of Normal & Primer Sells - total No of Normal Buys) {in case of a Buy primer and vice versa for sell primer} to satisfy point 1 that I have mentioned.
Dennis’ logic of starting with 3 times the Normal lot size and then slowly increasing is not mathematically correct and leads to subjectivity. What if rate keeps going down? Your drawdown will increase and equity will fall below 40% and you will reach a stage where your primer sizes are equal to (No of total buys - No of total sells) which is when you will protect equity from reducing. Upon reaching this stage what if rate turns up and goes the other way. You are at the same situation which will happen with what I suggested in the first place.
Anyhow, I think the solution to this problem is in the sizing of normal trades after primers have been placed:
Sorry, if this post is too inconsistent. i wanted to post the idea first and then we can refine it (if you guys agree). To me, it makes sense. Maybe I am wrong. let me know your opinions.
Regards
CC
The point of primers is to extend the channel, meaning keeping equity high enough that regular trades can be placed in new areas if it starts ranging there, while also covering SL for all open trades now in minus. To extend the channel (let’s use a rise), you need to open more long primers than there are open short orders, but you can’t however just open one giant long primer as the rate might turn right away. Or open 3 primers of 1/3 at the same time for that matter. Instead it’s neccesary to open several long primers at different rate steps and set SL so that when the trend turns, most of them are closed by SL. You’ll always end up with some primers at either end of the channel (unless rate slowly zig-zags so that equity rises high enough to extend the channel without primers, but that’s unlikely). Having a single main primer and a smaller secondary/sub-primer open on trend turn is not a big problem.
In any case, the problem is distance. If main primers are 1/3 of opposing trades, you’ll need 3 of them to stop drawdown, but 2 of them will need to have SL so that they will not be a problem as rate turns, but the closer primers are to each other, the more are taken out by SL on retracements. The further apart they are, the longer it takes to turn equity. I therefore think that primer size has to be calculated from primer distance, which again is calculated from retracements.
This was not mine, Michael told me, but once again, having multiple primers all but the top/bottom one with SL solves this assuming they survive retracements.
Here I disagree. This would turn regs into some sort of “mini-primers” and you will hit the other side of channel quicker. If we can get the primers right you will at any point in time/rate level either be able to afford to run regs, or primers are still used.
If you have regs from 1.4000 to 1.5000, and then long primers help you to survive a jump to 1.7000, then this would be your new “channel area” assuming rate starts to range there instead of plunging back down of course. It sucks that there are lots of open regs between 1.4-1.5, but as lot sizes increase and bigger profits are made in the 1.7 area, those old orders will become less and less relevant for balance and equity.
So the big balancing act is how to add enough long primers to survive a rise from 1.5 to 1.7 with equity intact, without having them taken out by retracements to SL level while still trending upwards on the one hand, and leaving too many lots unsecured in case of rate turn on the other. A fixed distance of x pips between primers will not do, as retracements change constantly. We need to learn to read the distance of retracements so that primers are spaced better, then take into consideration how big the primers need to be with that distance.
The simulation EA kind of sucks at this as measuring retracements on a 1M chart is less than ideal, but even with a forward test where you could change distances directly (and change time-frames) or place primers manually, how do you handle primers when the rate moves 2-300 pips up and down as part of a larger trend?
One solution that M suggested was to look at your need for cash to cover SL instead of only balance (for margin accounts with MT4, not eToro). Then the EA might discover retracement patterns for some time back and calculate from there. Not sure how we would do this, but is sounds good in theory, I think…
I certainly do think a lot of profits that could cover drawdown is now lost to SL on retracements with overlapping primers. Sub-primers help a little as they hit TP, but not enough in my experience.
Re
D
The point of primers is to extend the channel, meaning keeping equity high enough that regular trades can be placed in new areas if it starts ranging there, while also covering SL for all open trades now in minus. To extend the channel (let’s use a rise), you need to open more long primers than there are open short orders, but you can’t however just open one giant long primer as the rate might turn right away. Or open 3 primers of 1/3 at the same time for that matter. Instead it’s neccesary to open several long primers at different rate steps and set SL so that when the trend turns, most of them are closed by SL. You’ll always end up with some primers at either end of the channel (unless rate slowly zig-zags so that equity rises high enough to extend the channel without primers, but that’s unlikely). Having a single main primer and a smaller secondary/sub-primer open on trend turn is not a big problem.
In any case, the problem is distance. If main primers are 1/3 of opposing trades, you’ll need 3 of them to stop drawdown, but 2 of them will need to have SL so that they will not be a problem as rate turns, but the closer primers are to each other, the more are taken out by SL on retracements. The further apart they are, the longer it takes to turn equity. I therefore think that primer size has to be calculated from primer distance, which again is calculated from retracements.
Yes, the above also makes sense. instead of opening one set of primers right away to avoid DD, open 3 primers equalling total DD but 2 with SL’s, hence when price retraces you only have 1/3 of total DD and this probably will be covered up by many regs hitting TP.
This was not mine, Michael told me, but once again, having multiple primers all but the top/bottom one with SL solves this assuming they survive retracements.
Yes, I agree.
Here I disagree. This would turn regs into some sort of “mini-primers” and you will hit the other side of channel quicker. If we can get the primers right you will at any point in time/rate level either be able to afford to run regs, or primers are still used.
maybe not because you have bigger opposite trades and it will help you cover the channel longer. I will try to work up the math and see if I can back it up with numbers.
If you have regs from 1.4000 to 1.5000, and then long primers help you to survive a jump to 1.7000, then this would be your new “channel area” assuming rate starts to range there instead of plunging back down of course. It sucks that there are lots of open regs between 1.4-1.5, but as lot sizes increase and bigger profits are made in the 1.7 area, those old orders will become less and less relevant for balance and equity.
So the big balancing act is how to add enough long primers to survive a rise from 1.5 to 1.7 with equity intact, without having them taken out by retracements to SL level while still trending upwards on the one hand, and leaving too many lots unsecured in case of rate turn on the other. A fixed distance of x pips between primers will not do, as retracements change constantly. We need to learn to read the distance of retracements so that primers are spaced better, then take into consideration how big the primers need to be with that distance.
yes that is the big question If the system requires so much subjectivity then it is not mathematical.
As much as we are focussing on primer sizes and its steps, we must also focus on raising sizes of regs. I think just based on balance is not the perfect idea.
That’s the thing, though the hour-glass system uses lots of math, but it’s not a completely mathematical strategy, and M never said that it was either, as far as I’ve seen. Perhaps we could come up with some code that calculated retracement patterns in a very clever way that included changing time frames based on volatility or something crazy like that, but complete auto-pilot is unlikely to happen. The lot increases used for manual trades are very helpful (I just hard-coded the values in a function ;-), but it’s important to lock the lot sizes while in primer territory. You should try adding that.
What I see instead of auto-trading, is regulars being placed completely automatically and first primers triggered based on drawdown calcs so that a sudden change wouldn’t kill the channel while you sleep. Then the next day you’d have to make some decisions and update the variables once in awhile. Let’s say you think the rate will go up to some resistance level ('cause M said so or whatever) and you want to pile on a couple of extra primers for the trip upwards, but can’t sit all night and wait to update SL etc. If you want an extra primer to be “regular” size, you just change a variable (AddMainLongPrimerNow?) from false to true and the primer will be placed right away (and the variable reset) with all the normal settings, but also if you add a manual trade of a different size to correct something in the balance, you could put a code in the comments and the EA will understand that this is in fact another primer of type x so it should update SL for you once appropriate etc. Not auto-pilot, but it would certainly drastically reduce the workload for someone who has the capability of running the system manually (not that I do yet, hence the simulation EA).
I’m not ready to give up on this, but I don’t believe it can work completely unattended. M promised to start teaching another system using negatively correlated symbols in a couple of weeks that might be suited for complete auto-pilot, but programming that will be a *****. As far as I know it’s not possible to backtest using multiple symbols at the same time in MT4, so forward tests only. That’ll take some time to test and improve
Re
D
Hi,
In a hypothetical situation (GBPUSD):
- I have a bunch of BUYs opened, causing 60% DD;
- 1 SELL opened as primer
If the rate goes South again, the purpose is clear: minimize the DD and turn it into profit after 200-300pips.
My first question is, if the rate goes North, what would be then our goal (could we survive a straight move to 1.6000 again if the primer is 1/3rd of the initial DD)? What if the rate goes back to 1.6000 again, what would be the maximum primer size (in %) that we could carry (we will have now normal trades+primer going “against” us)?
Another question:
In my opinion, the EA should have a parameter with the distance, in pips, when the DD will be turned into profit by using primers. Then the EA primer logic should be changed according to this distance. In my mind this sound simple enough to express the “need” of primers.
CC:
just fell over this
DoubleToStr - MQL4 Documentation
it helps making the on-screen stats look better, if set to only 2 decimals…
as an example:
Comment("
No Of Normal Buys by EA = “+BuyCount+” : “+DoubleToStr(NoOfBuy, 2)+” lots "+"
No Of Normal Sells by EA = “+SellCount+” : "+DoubleToStr(NoOfSell, 2)+…