The documents on FB is not 100% up to date.
The fact is that the normal trade part can be any of the 3 options. But the primers need to be held in x100 or equilant size in other leverage, to balance the channel
How can the leverage be relevant when the formula uses units instead of invested amount? Could you set up some numbers to explain? Quicker to calculate manually I get, but otherwise I’m completely lost.
Re
D
You might be right in that one.
If You have a x25 account, then You just use a bigger part of the margin to get the lots
So in that way You will not be able to buy as many lots with ie. $2000, as a x100 account would be able to buy.
So You might need more capital to gain the same as a x100 account.
But It might work out of the box, and then the earnings will just be smaller than a x100 account.
I’m not quite sure, as I’m no expert in the margin thing in MT4.
unfortunately I don’t have any x25 accounts. So I cant do any testing to find out more.
Inputs from hardcore MT4 masters are welcome 
I don’t see how you can “buy more lots” with x100. Firstly the rate movements decide when to buy, secondly whether you use 10$ to buy 1.000 units and add more money after -50 pips to cover SL, or initially pay 40$ and add more after -400 pips, you’ll still earn 5$ at TP, and the total cost of covering drawdown will be the same for equally sized lots. If you use higher leverage in order to buy larger lots, then everything will change, but as long as the EA buys the correct lot size I’m pretty sure the leverage won’t be relevant.
I did find a note from Michael on his wall where he mentioned that he is using x100 “because it’s easier for some things”, but he didn’t say what or why.
Re
D
the trades closest to the current rate is still locking down 40$ at x25 where at x100 you would only have 10$ locked in a trade, this means that you have more free money in the etoro world to extend the forced SL on trades far away from current rate
Hi Dennis,
Leverage is an important factor to consider.
For eg. To buy 1 lot of AUDUSD I need 431USD with a broker who offers me 1:200 leverage whereas
to buy the same lot with a broker which offers 1:50 I need 2000USD.
Hence you will need more deposit in your account to account for the equity drop.
The profit and loss factor will be the same in both cases but holding capacity will differ.
Viking says that the 0.01lot strategy is suitable with a deposit of 2000$ for a 1:100 leverage but ppl with less leverage will need more money in their account.
True, but you still need to cover SL for larger movements, and as soon as your x100 0.01 lot of 10$ has moved 400 pips, you have locked up 40$ anyway and are in the exact same situation as x25 0.01 of 40$. If you use the lower initial purchase price to buy larger lots, or place more frequent orders, you’ll quickly run into trouble. As such, I don’t see why it would be neccesary to include leverage calculations in the EA. As long as you use f.ex. 2% at x25 or 0.5% at x100, initial deposit size, drawdown, and profits should be exactly the same. I think…
There may be a point in having more free margin available for placing primers, but correctly calculating the 0.06% and acting on it in time should negate the difference. I think too…
Man, you guys are making me unsure about everything
Re
D
But with a lower leverage you will start placing primers sooner than others with X100 leverage because your equity will drop faster than others.
With X25 leverage you will have to place primers at a 0.24% equity drop per pip, but with 2000$ in your account, is that good enough to avoid a margin call - not sure but backtesting will help I guess.
I don’t see how this calculates, but I will accept it move on. Maybe I’ll get it later on. How are you doing on primer implementation?
Re
D
Still working on it. Hope to make it ready by tomorrow or latest by Sunday.
Wow, fantastic!
Re
D
nice, its like children at christmas, waiting for pressents 
Hi.
Been following the discussion on the side. Not sure I have much to add about the leverage, but personally I would probably trade x25 or x50. x100 just moves too quickly, and lower leverage will give you a more clear picture as to how much your trades will end up taking when the trend goes against you.
I have seen people saying 2000 USD for trading GBP and 3000 USD for trading EUR; but I haven’t seen any calculations on how this figure has been reached? I have started demoing a EUR channel just for fun, but would like to know a bit more about how the actual channel is calculated. Given that channels can take several years of trading to really materialize, it seems to me that one wouldh have to use an equally large time-frame for calculating the channel, and not just the past 3 months data or so. At the moment the 1.2900 EUR/USD seems to be at a good spot for opening up a channel…
BUT if I look at the historical charts it would be something like 1.6000 that would be the top, and 1.1700 that would be bottom (although it has been all the way down to 0.8400 earlier).
Thats a range of 5000-8000 pips if you want a safety-margin as well… With a movement of e.g. 2000 pips you could end up with 50 open trades in the wrong direction, with 5 USD ticks if they were purchased with 1000 units. The 50 open trades is btw. maximum if you only have 2000 USD to start with.
Anyway - it migh work out since you start building equity and the markets seldom move one way without retracements… but I am just trying to speculate… If / how it would be possible to ‘save’ a channel if the markets go bonanza (which they probably will given enough time). If one start trading the EUR/USD with 2000-3000 USD…
These a kind of ‘metaquestions’ to the overall strategy I guess, but given that the EA has been looking so promising I guess I am starting to seriously consindering this, which brings up some additional questions. I would like to avoid a crash similar to webzones if it can be helped at all. Will probably trade with MT4, and then possibly set up a signal through Zulutrade, if their system is geared towards channeltrading (lots of open positions…).
I don’t have the calculations for 2.000 vs. 3.000$, just got that from Viking, but the point is that you need an initial fund to cover “some trending movement”. Once you get up to a bigger balance you can increase lot size and still cover “some trending movement”. For larger movements you use the primers in order to make at least as much profits as your drawdown for opposite trades. If you get that balance right, there won’t really be any fixed channel borders. The primers will increase your balance so that you can add trades in the new range. Old trades far away will cost you money for swap and tie up some of your equity, but as the system grows in lot size all those 0.01 orders you placed last year will be amply covered by the profits from the 0.1 (or 2.0 or 5.0) lots you are trading now. We won’t know how long it will take to build the channel as that depends on the rate movement, but 2 years is proposed as the expected timeframe to reach step 500, at which time you’re making 2.500$ per closed trade.
As for ZuluTrade, I think they only allow a maximum of -700 pips, so that won’t work.
Re
D
you need to re-think that 40$ x25 is not moving faster than 10$ x100 … both is 1.000 units…
let me guess that you are thinking of the difference between 40x25 and 40x100 , in that case it would “move” faster, but that is because you compare 1.000 units with 4.000 units… and that is[U][B] NOT [/B][/U]what we are talking about
its pretty easy to avoid having a crash like webzone… just dont use a broker with a forced SL and a laggy platform…
And if your still consindering, then you should be absolutly sure before you use a live account, and never use money you cant afford to loose, you dont want to become emotional while having a big grid with lots of red numbers building up, you need a clear head all the way…
Question: what about difference in lot sizes on large retracements?
If I have a bunch of shorts around 1.5000-1.4000 with 0.01 lots. Then we move up to 2.0000 for a while and lots grow to 0.5 with all those lovely pips. Now the trend moves back to 1.5000. It must then have some rather unfortunate effects if new 0.5 trades wasn’t placed during a 1.000 pips fall because we have 0.01 shorts at those rates from “last year”.
Should we count on primers to correct this situation or add an additional test so that new trades are placed in “occupied territory” if old trades are some degree smaller than current lot size?
Re
D
if we get back down to an 0.01 and is now on lets say 0.02 we should close the old trade and open a new with the new lot size in its place, i know that viking is doing this
So at 1.5000 (moving down) I place a 0.02 buy. There’s already a short there of 0.01 smelling like a dinosaur that I’ve paid swap for for a year. Do I now add another 0.02 short and get two TP’s at 1.4950 (but also decrease my equity for 50 pips), or do I close the 0.01 without profits and add a new 0.02 short?
The worst solution would be to not place a 0.02 and get profits from the existing 0.01 at 1.4950. I think that is what would happen with the EA at the moment.
Re
D
that is a good question, maybe we could try both to see what would work best in the long run if crisscross1983 is up for it?
im pretty shure that viking is closing the old one, and just making the new trade instead, but maybe the other option to let them run side by side would be fine to, as there would only be 1 double trade in one direction at a time…
EDIT: just got a scarry thought… if placed side by side, and the rate turns again, and dont return before a new primer size increasement, then we would suddenly have 3 trades side by side on the first one, so if this should be done there should also be a check on how many trades there is open at that rate, so we in worst case dont get alot of side by side trades…
i know this is the extreme case, but lets think of as many scenarios as possible 