It looks to me as if the lots are scaling, just more conservatively. Whereas the normal system uses single steps (done with 0.001, now all is 0.002), using calculations will decide what is a safe level based on current free margin. As such the lots are scaled down when the account is under pressure. Though obvisouly not as profitable, it is possibly safer. I say possibly because smaller new lots covering older larger lots could be a problem. Current lot size could be set as a global variable and then the calculation will only be used to increase the lot size when the balance reaches a safe level. I’m pretty sure we would need to have primers implemented before that could work though as lot size then would be calculated from balance, whereas primers would be calculated from free margin.
It looks like the EA is calculating the lotsize, from the Equity, and not from the balance.
That should be done frome the balance if possible. ,to make the tradesize in balance.
Else it does look promising.
At the moment I’m playing a little around with the distance to sellstops and buystops, in visualmode to see how it actually perform.
It looks like the EA is calculating the lotsize, from the Equity, and not from the balance.
That should be done frome the balance if possible. ,to make the tradesize in balance.
Yes, currently it is checking free margin avbl and placing lots. I will make it to check account balance for lot sizes.
It looks like the EA is calculating the lotsize, from the Equity, and not from the balance.
That should be done frome the balance if possible. ,to make the tradesize in balance.
I dont think sizing lots based on account balance is a good idea. If you want to try out, just replace the code [B]Free=Accountfreemargin()[/B] to [B]Free=Accountbalance();[/B] in three places and then backtest.
the escalation of the lot size looks much better, but without the primers it is stoped out 11 days after increasing the lot size…
but now its increasing lot size to 0.02 at “step 73”, should have been a bit earlier, but its only about a month off, instead of the year with “free margin”
Fantastic results so far! This is really looking promising.
But… there is still the big cliff at the end in most cases, which means 100% loss.
Is there some sort of formulated exit strategy? I haven’t been able to see one from Viking other than that it will be revealed later, but if later = margin call, it still might appear as an appealing strategy to get followers based on rapid increase, but with less safety in the end.
So far only one has managed to end up with a decent profit. The 2010-2012 GBP/USD, which went from 2000 to 10.000 (500%) in 2 years.
The exit strategy is a combination of an elevator (trades placed in only on direction to a top or bottom, see BigBry on eToro) and something called a “sling-shot” which I have not seen any details about yet. It is also possible to stall the channel (by not increasing lot size once you’ve reach a large balance), and then just take out the profits as they come in.
The collapse at the end of all tests are a result of the testing algoritm in MetaTrader 4 automatically closing all open trades once it’s gone through the selected time period.
Hopefully CC will expand the EA to include an exit strategy once we learn the finer details of those strategies, but at the moment we need to get the start right, so just ignore the last trades in the tests.
Actually, I don’t think the lot should be escalated until step 113 (4.618$). The step 57 escalation in the Excel sheet is “a manual increase if you are inside a safe 550-pips range” (best explanation I’ve found so far, I’m afraid). With the EA, you’ll need to change the Percent variable to decide where lot increases happen (higher %, quickler escalation).
yes, as i said, i think this is much better, i know that i could fidle with the % to ajust it, but i dont think its a bad thing that its 20 steps (or one trading month) off, this would give a little more free $ before increasing lot size… my point was that webzone was right, this was exactly what did the trick of escalating closer to the plan
Hi,
there is an exit strategy, if you look at BigBry on etoro, the elevator strategy he is trading right now is the strategy used for a channel exit…
but but but, why would you exit?
after you have build the channel, you can just stop increasing the lot size, and then all new profits can be continuesly pulled out.
that is how viking1961 gets his paycheck…
Thank you all for the answers. Good to know that the final fall-off is simply the EA closing, and not because the channel crashes.
And yes- I guess the elevator strategy is how one could exit - at least that is how I have thought about it myself - just haven’t seen it executed.
And yes - ideally one could just stall the channel and start taking out profits.
That this appears to work still seems so mindboggling to me. And I am to a certain degree afraid to just live test it on EUR/USD, as it will take years to fully manifest. Especially the whole idea of no SL seems like a very risky move, and counter to everything thing you learning in your trading ABC. What if you suddenly run out of money half-way into the channel and will have to suddenly make huge deposits to save your investment?
It cant be all roses? At least it seems that quite a few people trading the channel on etoro have eventually collapsed…?
there is no big danger in not using SL, as long as you balance out the channel with primers when the drawdown gets to high…
the people having problems on etoro is mostly due to the laggy platform, the forced SL, and some started to late with primers, or had problems implementing them right… you must remember that viking1961 was the only one who was used to trading this way, and the others where trying to learn… and looking back, etoros platform is a bad choice for learning this strategy
look at webzone, only reason for his channel crashing down was that etoros webtrader would not allow him to change the SL on his trades… if there had not been a forced SL (or the platform had not been so buggy) his channel would have been up and running…
If you run out of money you channel will crash and all the time spent on building it (and your initial deposit) will just be gone. That’s why you build it up using a rather large initial deposit (2.000$ for GBP/USD, 3.000$ for EUR/USD) and use small lots. Once the balance is large enough to cover larger lots you increase. If the trend starts moving the rate outside the area you can cover with your current balance, you use primers. So far I think the system has been mathematically explained, at least to my satisfaction.
When it comes to eToro, I think some traders have started their own channel without a good understanding of the system, and eToros WebTrader is a very poor platform for a system such as this. And there has also been a lot of bugs with them. I’m not sure (though I appriciate it) why Michael uses eToro, but I would assume it’s just a small side thing for him because he’s nice and likes the social aspects. I very much doubt that eToro is his main trading acccount.
The bad part of this system is that it’s slow in it’s initial build-up. Beyond that the logic is basically just that the rate won’t fall or rise forever. Stay away from Zimbabwe Dollars and you should be OK
I’ve been experimenting with the Percent variable. My demo account uses 25:1 leverage, so I assume the tester picks ups on that. All test are run from 2.000$ initial balance and during the same time period for GBP/USD.
Percent = 0.3: No trades, lots too small
Percent = 0.4: Lot increase at 3.925,07
Percent = 0.5: Lot increase at 3.156,46
Percent = 0.6: Lot increase at 2.603,75
Percent = 0.7: Lot increase at 2.356,64
Percent = 0.8: Lot increase at 2.049,76 (channel collapsed)
Greenland Investment Plan Calculation V.2.0.2.xlsx calls for lot increase at 2.814.97. Older versions set the limit at a slightly higher level, but I seem to have deleted those files. The eToro oriented descriptions call for 2% per trade at x25 leverage. Can anyone explain this discrepancy to me?
the unit size escalation still seems to increase to slow though, if you look at your test lets take the 0.6 one as an example, the first increase fits to the first lot increase, but if we look at your last trade after 1 year and 7 month you have a lot size of 0.09 … where you should have been to around 1.00 in lot size at this point…
maybe webzone can figure out why there is this big difference
If You use leverage x25 then You should use 2% - 4% lots
if you use leverage x50 then You should use 1% - 2% lots
if you use leverage x100 then You should use 0,5% - 1% lots
The calculations that I have made is all based on leverage x100 because the primers needs to be leverage x100 to work as planed.
If the EA shall support leverage x25 then it shall be implemented into the code so You can choose it in the settings.
However, I do think that the primer part will work with a leverage x25. But the whole system will then work a lot slower and will not follow the plan in speed. and maybe some other adjustment will be needed too. But I haven’t made any calculations on that leverage.
First we need to get an working EA on leverage x100.
Then afterwards it might can be adjusted to also suit x25.
Leverage isn’t set in the EA, but in your account (MT4 is different from eToro). The dox on FB says x25, 2% and refers to 40$. Since 2% of 2.000 times 25 is 40 that’s not too difficult. Changing the leverage and % should make no difference at all, neither for regular trades nor primers (4 * 25 = 1 * 100).
What gets me all confused is the Percent variable in the EA and the two lines:
