Need a 'Stealthy' axillary 'Stop Loss' EA that will override the SL in other charts with an EA on them. - page 2
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I am not going to try to argue with you about this because you won't change your opinion and I personally do not care what you wish to believe, you are free to believe whatever you want. My last posting is simply stating what I have found to be most likely the truth after evaluating my experiences and those of others and drawing all logical conclusions.
One very basic axiom that plays a central role in all these arguments is that the market will not make any special moves for retail trader Joe Sixpack. From this alone you can already derive that the stop hunting theory must be wrong.
I won't write lengthy essays about this topic now, instead if you are really interested you will find many threads on many forums explaining in great detail why for example a static strategy can't stay profitable forever and also why your assumption about "tens of thousands" of profitable EAs sabotaged by dealers is plain wrong (it is the EA sabotaging itself by not considering the ever changing market behaviors).
You have to think about this yourself and come to the correct conclusions yourself. I cannot cure you from your paranoia, one symptom of the paranoia is unfortunately that you will not believe me whatever I say, so I won't even try.
Doug: It's people like you who are helping to screw up the Forex by passing bad information to the public. You lose your money, you blame the broker. Someone trying to manipulate the markets happened to every market ever created. So why do static systems stop working... hmm... perhaps because the dummy on the other side of your trades ran out of money or stopped trading???
You don't trust the broker but instead give them your account $$ ?? What sense does that make?
Why didn't you just recommend an ECN broker ... pay the commissions and variable spreads and move on.
Ok, so now that you have the stealthy sl/tp.... if broker spikes the price would your system not still close at the same old price ??? hen??
Most people lose for the same reason they lose in the Casinos... They have a 50/50 game -minus- Spreads/Commissions aka> House Edge. Start out with small bankrolls like $500 and think they gonna make more than their day jobs in 2 weeks. Over-bet which is similar to going all in all the time and wonder why they lose. And the rest of us have to suffer with smaller leverage aka> flat bet because of em.
Hi Guys,
Believe me, I'm not saying that the only reason that I or any others lose money on the ForEx is ONLY because of shady dealers. If it were only that easy: just find an honest broker and everyone will make money. We all know that this is not how the ForEx works: anytime someone makes money, it was at the expense of others who lost it. Regardless of the broker.
I’m just making the point that the brokers that most of us deal with have intimate and real time control over what they present us to trade with. Do I think that they are specifically targeting me or any such other miniscule ForEx speculator like me? Absolutely not. Do I think that they shift the advantage? Yep. When I see things like spreads that are at 15 pips from brokers that aren’t normally in this range, while other brokers are running the same pairs at the same time much closer to their norms. Likewise, the minimum SL points. Brokers that set these at 100 pips when normally these are in the 30 ~ 40 range. While other brokers have the minimum spread on the same pair at the same time at where they usually are. What would you subscribe these to and what conclusions would you draw and make of it? We know that any broker that constantly had spreads in the teens or minimum SL of 100 pips wouldn’t be around long in this marketplace. But I know for a fact that some of them sometimes do these things. From first hand experience. Not hearsay. Most EAs aren't going to have the capacity to deal with such things effectively. So why do such transitory conditions manifest and who benefits from them ?
Given the scale, fiascos of recent massive financial nightmares primarily from unethical financial business executives that robbed millions of people of their life savings &/or everything that they had, in spite of the fact that they were and are regulated. The only ethos that such people operate these businesses at is ‘the more profit for themselves the better’. Regardless of the consequences for others, including their own customers and the share holders as well in some cases. The latter is quite often the case. They call such things 'rigged' 'insider trading' for good reason and why the governing and regulatory bodies of integrity do everything that they can to eliminate it. I do mention that this was indeed the case with the Japanese stock market and when it was fully brought to the light of day the JPY crashed on the national and international market big time. What was the name of the large corporation in the US that got nailed about a decade or so ago for having 'cooked books'. A lot of office staff worked over time for months before it became public dong nothing but shredding documents. How many of those responsible got appropriate jail time and were fined and returned the massive amounts of money that they stole? This isn't my 'ignorant and damaging spreading of misinformation'. It is a matter of record.
As for me being an example of the type of ignorant and misinformed person that is responsible for ‘screwing up the ForEx’ because of the misinformation that I am disseminating, you give me way too much credit. I have virtually no effect on it one way or another. There are almost as many takes on the ForEx as there are investors. Dividing it by a couple of powers of tens still leaves a huge wide variance in peoples understanding, theories, facts, ideas, approaches, beliefs and disbeliefs. However if it is your beliefs that retail ForEx brokers have no part or effect on the outcome of anyone’s trading activates, then my response is the same accusation that you make of me.
None of this negates the fact that dealing desk retail brokers by definition do have the capacity to manipulate the ‘house rules and ratios’ and do so. Likely dynamically in real time on an ongoing basis. They would be idiots if they didn't. It's part of the way this (retail) market is set up and operates. Nothing if absolutely 'fixed' and stationary for these retail brokers. Even more so in unregulated ones.
As for me being a dunce and continuing to give my money to ForEx dealers that I consider to be dishonest: that is an assumption that you are making. I never said that I was. Obviously if I think that they are outright dishonest, I am not going to do business with them. The question is: where does one draw the line with dealing desks that can and do (continually) alter the signals that they offer? Most of us just go along in blind faith (and ignorance [as in 'lack of knowledge]) and always give the brokers the benefit of the doubt that they are acting with integrity and in your best interests. This doesn't make it so. Nor the converse for that matter.
However if you read all of what I had to say initially on this, you will have noted that I am currently ‘forward testing brokers’ and finding that there are dramatic differences in the results from these. These aren’t a matter of my ‘opinion’ or ‘ignorance’ and ‘misinformation’. The facts speak for themselves. Draw whatever conclusions that you wish from this. For me, it is and will have an effect of what I trade where.
I’m just making the point that the (retail) brokers ARE part of the equation and it is not yours or my side that they are on. If you want to make the assertion that none of these brokers ever ‘stack the deck’ in their own favor: then take the mathematical tools required to actually test these and then present the unbiased facts as others have done. Those that HAVE done it have found that MOST of the retail brokers that they tested DIDN’T pass this Litmus test. More specifically: this is testing and documenting the variance in leverage of an account as it trades and the totals shift dynamically. To the extent that perhaps like yourselves if you undertake this: they were quite amazed at the degree and the extent to which this does occur. Perhaps as you are now, the ones that I have read that have done this for the most part have the same initial reaction: disbelief.
Re: trade in an environment where there is no dealing desk that they can dynamically skew in their favor. No argument there. Though as with such things there are other factors in play.
As we know, the topics of Brokers is ‘out of bounds’ on this forum. So make any response that you wish, then let us let this go here.
From what I understand, this thread represents what JJC was referring to when it came to the Rules. I understood this as Specific Name of brokers is not allowed here. I apologize if I somehow offend anyone in my earlier comments. As you know I'm kinda new to the Forex and Programming in general, however, unfortunately for me, this is one of the few places where I can have conversations about Trading and Programming without boring someone. So I get sucked into non-mql4 topics sometimes.
In my earlier statement "Someone trying to manipulate the markets happened to every market ever created" this includes Forex as well. A year ago, when I started I had the out-most distrust for brokers. I can still remember thinking, how can these Senior members on this forum come to the brokers defense; they must work for the brokers. And where do you think I got this impression that the brokers were out to cheat me?
As with all dis-agreements, there's always something we can all agree upon. In this case, it's that not every broker can be trusted. And even good brokers can sometimes go rogue. Ok, so we recognize the Elephant in the room, what are we going to do about it. We as Independent traders don't have much power to change anything <--- better put in my opinion after that statement. If we keep yelling Elephant...Elephant the regulatory bodies who think their job it is to protect us will come in with shot-guns. Only they don't recognize the elephant is the size of our Peggy banks. The regulatory bodies turn to the Experts in the field for consultation on what should be changed but they don't talk to you and I. They instead talk to the big boys, and you can guess what happens after that.
Are the brokers part of the game ... but of course. Some people's ethical values on this forum is so high that they see "taking advantage of slow broker's execution" as cheating. I can only salute them for that stance. But allot of people use these types of strategies and have no problem with it. "I mean come on.... we're traders and it's our duty to capitalize on arbitrage where ever we find it". But when the brokers use re-quotes, increase spreads and spikes we scream bloody murder.
Getting back to the programming. Yeah some techniques can be helpful. Example, not sending stoploss/takeprofit to the broker. I started using this approach, not because I was afraid I'd get stop-hunted but because I wanted to test 5-pip take profit but my brokers minimum was 10-pips. Someone on here had to tell me that before the lights came on. There're lots of examples and I'm sure you've explored a ton of them by now.
As for Speads ... I've heard when you use a spread tracker on a variable spread broker, you could be surprised. Simply put, I do-not like the idea of variable spreads so I choose a fixed spread broker. Yep... no ECN for me, thank you. That's like farmer charging $0 for apples today and $20 for it tomorrow. What's my cost of doing business with that model. Yes, even the fixed brokers have fine-prints that the rates are subject to change. When I program EA, I'd be a fool not to check the spreads and slippage.
In summary, the reason I even responded (the first time) within this thread (besides running my mouth) was to say "It's not that bad". So if you're new to Forex don't be afraid of em. If you're a regulatory person without expertize in Forex then please leave us alone, so we can dance with these brokers. Unless of-course they're gonna listen to concerns to Individual Traders like you and I, like eliminating re-quotes, increase spreads and spikes etc. We both know that wouldn't happen as we'd be biting the hands that feeds us and brokers have to make money, some more greedy than others.
Here is one for you:
EXACT same account setup: with a very well known and established and highly rated Broker. EVERYTHING is exactly the same:
EXCEPT: One account is Live and the other is a Demo:
Results:
Initial Demo is still profitable and building equity.
Live: Has cleaned the account out a couple of times.
NOT 'hearsay' : My own accounts.
'nuf said
ubzen:
Hi ubzen et al
:
Not a NuB FX trader, not a programmer.
Not paranoid, but not a fool either. Just realistic and not naively believing that all of the FX brokers are out there to make us money and set it up so that we do. The latter is more or less a statement of the obvious, but is worth noting and remembering from time to time: 'Buyer beware'
(1) Getting back to the programming. Yeah some techniques can be helpful. Example, not sending stoploss/takeprofit to the broker. I started using this approach, not because I was afraid I'd get stop-hunted but because I wanted to test 5-pip take profit but my brokers minimum was 10-pips. Someone on here had to tell me that before the lights came on. There're lots of examples and I'm sure you've explored a ton of them by now
We all use methods, techniques and 'work arounds' to try and get the best advantage. Broker's, traders and programmers alike. Good to be aware and wary if trading EAs that things like transients such as much higher spreads and larger minimum SL points do occur. It's easy to get (REALLY) involved in the programming and not take note of such things that can and do have significant impact on the performance of one's EA that may leave us scratching our heads and going nuts trying to figure out why if these factors aren't noted and taken into account. This also applies to people like me that primarily trade EAs but don't program them.
(2) As for Speads ... I've heard when you use a spread tracker on a variable spread broker, you could be surprised. Simply put, I do-not like the idea of variable spreads so I choose a fixed spread broker. Yep... no ECN for me, thank you. That's like farmer charging $0 for apples today and $20 for it tomorrow. What's my cost of doing business with that model. Yes, even the fixed brokers have fine-prints that the rates are subject to change. When I program EA, I'd be a fool not to check the spreads and slippage.
This illustrates that this broker is indeed 'adjusting' their signals. The market doesn't operate on fixed spreads so they have to be in order to offer this. No doubt your are well aware of this and as you say it is your preference and choice. Just so long as you are aware of what they are doing to compensate for this and alter in order for them to offer these kind of quotes to you and take it into account in your programming.
,,
So as this isn't a 'dissect and rate brokers' forum and we've brought out our various viewpoints including 'both sides of the fence' on various aspects and are now at acknowledging obvious and well known factors; time to bury this aspect of this and move on.
EXCEPT for the fact that I STILL don't have what I want and why I posted this in the first place.)< 8( I did get one response by a programmer saying that they had an EA available to do just what I want. But this topic got lost in limbo for several months and perhaps due to this lag I'm not getting any response and haven't been able to make contact with them. So far all I've got from this is some hashing over brokers and 'E' for effort.
You have to think about this yourself and come to the correct conclusions yourself. I cannot cure you from your paranoia, one symptom of the paranoia is unfortunately that you will not believe me whatever I say, so I won't even try
Hi 7bit:
Not a fanatical paranoid with firmly entrenched viewpoints that are fixed and immutable regardless of other information and facts, nor a blind fool: just 'Buyer beware' Good to know the entire lay of the land: 'ForeWarned is ForeArmed'.
On the contrary I'm very interested in true communication and finding out the truth in matters. I generally look at most things from many angles and sides and look at numerous different factors and do take these ALL into account.
As you may know, physicists have been exploring and putting forth significant and weird stuff on quantum physics trying to come up with the 'GUTS = 'Grand Unification theory'. Otherwise known as the 'theory of everything' (all matter and energy) This is because Einstein's theories of relativity don't fit in and jive with what is (believed to be) known about all of the other forces and matter in our existence. Gravity is considered to be a 'weak force' as opposed to all of the rest that are 'strong forces' When it comes right down to it, EVERYTHING is just 'energy' and all energy is just vibrations. But vibrations of what?
In relation to this, there have been numerous theories put forward postulating the existence of a number of other dimensions. But different theorists come up with different numbers of dimensions. Until one of them unified all of these (pun intended) on a mathematical basis and showed that they were all talking about the same thing, just that they were all looking and approaching it from different angles, viewpoints and with different subsets. An apt analogy for what we have been doing here? FYI: the current consensus is that there are 9 dimensions in OUR universe.
Also it is now generally accepted among such circles that while our universe is still considered to be infinite, that it is not without limits and boundaries. Go figure that one out. I'm not sure if this is now considered a paradox or just a matter of semantics. Much more advanced (primarily satellite) based instruments and thus information that have become available in the last decade or two. As it is with such things, while it has answered some questions, it has spawned many more. A couple of interesting things:
The 'visible' part of our universe is now considered to be only about just 5% of what the total of it is. The majority of it is now said to be made up of mysterious 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' about which very little is known or understood as of yet. This has come about as AstroPhysicsts and Cosmologists previously believed that the universe was still expanding from the force of the 'Big Bang' and that eventually Gravity would overcome this and it would all start to contract until it finally collapsed into the 'big Crunch' Therefor the postulating of this Dark Energy and Matter that appears to have the opposite effect of gravity and is pushing everything apart at an ever increasing and accelerating rate.
Our whole universe, which has now been mapped on a macro scale and is roughly potato shaped (even though it is 'infinite') is all tending towards and traveling in one generally direction. It is all being pushed that way by some yet unknown force or factors or is all being drawn towards something unknown by unknown forces.
While the Quantum realm is a very weird place with many strange and counterintuitive properties, behavior and occurrences to many (me included), it does have some validation. As of about 2 decades or so ago, ~ 25% of the USA's GNP stemmed from technologies and products that developed out of and from the understanding and knowledge of Quantum physics and mechanics.
'Science marches on: death by death' Is the ForEx the same? I think not.
I won't write lengthy essays about this topic now, instead if you are really interested you will find many threads on many forums explaining in great detail why for example a static strategy can't stay profitable forever and also why your assumption about "tens of thousands" of profitable EAs sabotaged by dealers is plain wrong (it is the EA sabotaging itself by not considering the ever changing market behaviors).
Hi 7Bit,
I understand about the limitations of a fixed algorithm with relatively limited parameters compared to the much more complex and dynamic ForEx market. However do you really truly believe that of all of the thousands or even tens of thousands of EA that start off being profitable but then peter out for no apparent reason that the market conditions will be such that NONE of these once profitable EAs will NEVER encounter market conditions again that would make them profitable once more? This is VERY unlikely and the odds against it have to astronomical if the market quotes are always presented to us neutrally without 'fixing' and manipulated such that none of these EAs will never be profitable again? If you believe that this is indeed the case, then I suggest to you that rather than me being 'paranoid' it is you that are naively deluded and looking through rose colored glasses and seeing what you want to see as opposed to reality by believing that NONE of these once profitable EA's could NEVER be profitable again because of there fixed nature that no longer is valid for any subsequent market conditions. In a free, uncontrolled market, except by 'Market Makers', the likelihood of this occurring has to be so high that for all intents and purposes it is impossible. My 'froward testing' brokers shows very clearly that the outcome of trades varies widely with the exact same conditions except for the broker. This even includes different branches and brokerages all belonging to the same company, but with multiple locations around the world. Not even these trade the same with the same results.
Paranoid? I don't think so. Just realistic and with some data to back this up.
One time on a different forum I asked people to post a screenshot of their chart showing the last hour of 1 minute chart before market close on that Friday, several people participated showing chart history from several different brokers. Within that single 1 hour period there were peaks 14 pips higher on some brokers than others. Some showed no price rise while others showed a rise. Such differences will make a big difference to the performance of an EA
Some showed no price rise while others showed a rise.
And what was the price?