Phoenix - Development+Suggestions - MQ4 in Post#1 - page 13
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
The variable changes is the best part. Once I did it, I knew what was a user variable and what was a preferred setting instantly and I could change settings easily, and get things working faster. A major lesson in coding is that maintenance is what costs the most, so you spend more up front to get something more maintainable and then your save time and again after that. I didn't know that this was the thread with the latest code. Lets figure out when I could do the changes again to the latest version. Give everyone a break from doing new changes.
Yes, the variable changes were definitely the bulk of the work and the bulk of the contribution. If 5.6.7a is executing trades without errors, then I will definitely keep my hands off of it for a while. Separating "currency settings" from "MM settings" and "trade logic" is very necessary and in some ways the variables merge together.
We are about to start ambitious projects on "discovering and tracking" the best settings, so making these changes that you suggest should definitely happen before that gets underway to avoid incompability.
I would like to talk to you about Phoenix 6 more, so we can plan the variables in a way that Phoenix 6 and Phoenix 5.x with revised settings makes mroe sense. I do agree with you regarding maintenance, the utility of software is high for a one time cost in time, but the logistical costs are fixed. The community redesign was an attempt to spread the logistical costs among multiple people and it appears to be working. We keep getting new users, and they are asking more intelligent questions now.
I really like what you have done, but I want to avoid:
#1 needing to do change everything again for phoenix 6
#2 a fork in settings tracking (this would probably be worse than a code fork)
#3 delaying the release of a stable product
Wow, I made a mistake in that post, I wrote Risk=1.4 instead of Risk=0.14. I used 0.14 for comparison of the versions
I checked and all PrefSettings are the same as in previous version. Here: https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/175571 (msg 19) you have all current original settings for easy comparism.
Maybe you want to check into MaxRisk. 0.05 would be default (conservative number) and 0.3 would be agresive number. Your 1.4 may be to much off, and may cause some unplaned results. May, dunno....
Btw, what 'zackly do you mean with low results? Less trades? Less proffit? Something else? First impression?
MarioWell, the account almost always went down close to zero when I used those settings. Risk=0.14 corresponds to my favorite Risk/Stability factor I found for version 5.6.6 -- I would actually trade real money with that risk setting if v.5.6.6 was a bit more reliable during all time periods. It seems that in 5.6.7a it is much harder to get your account balance to multiply by 5 to 20 in 6 months
Well, the account almost always went down close to zero when I used those settings. Risk=0.14 corresponds to my favorite Risk/Stability factor I found for version 5.6.6 -- I would actually trade real money with that risk setting if v.5.6.6 was a bit more reliable during all time periods. It seems that in 5.6.7a it is much harder to get your account balance to multiply by 5 to 20 in 6 months
That is odd, because the only change in 5.6.7a was mode 3 bug fixing on stoplosses. Maybe not moving SL was a good thing?
Mode1 results should be identical. If you want a big massive trading spree, use mode1 and set maxtrades=5-10 and signal_count=30-100. That should impress you.
Well, the account almost always went down close to zero when I used those settings. Risk=0.14
I see, Risk=0.14
Which broker do you use? I'm forward testing on FXDD with defaul settings and my account actually gained around 15% in two weeks! Ver. 5.6.06 and last two days 5.6.07a. With one pair having all lossing trades. Two or three pairs (out of 6) finished in red. And still overall gain around 15%
With better settings for that pair, gain would be even better. This looks very good and promising to me.
As of profit compared with previous versions - you need to understand, that 3-6 months ago were different conditions. It is unreal, to expect, that EA will double up every month, lol but if we can get some consistent 10% per month, I would be very happy. And looks like I'm gonna be very happy lol
Mario
MM risk vs Mode 3
Decreasing the TP and increasing Lots over time is a decent idea, except we might actually be right about the potential profit level. If we reduce the TP to 1/3 the SL instead of 1/2 the SL, then we need to have over 75% wins instead of over 66% wins just to break even. This ends up having some issues overall.
Mode 3 on the other hand is designed to work with one trade at 0.5 TP, one trade at full TP, and another trade at 1.5 the TP. If the 0.5TP succeeds, then the other trades are protected. Their SL is set equal to the entry point, and they won't loose us any money. That we can take 24 pip * 1/3 lot size as profit. If we take the full 48 pip TP, then the last trade has its SL moved up to a 24 pip profit. Essentially if the first trade wins, we get something. If we were trading 3 lots overall, and we had a 48 pip TP, we would make
24 pips if trade 1 TP, 2 & 3 SL
96 pips if trade 1 & 2 TP, 3 SL
144 pips if trade 1 2 & 3 TP
The pip winnings are calculated based on a single lot size, not 3 lots.
That is how it is supposed to work at least, but Mode 3 has never worked right.
MM risk vs Mode 3
...
Decreasing the TP and increasing Lots over time is a decent idea
...
That is how it is supposed to work at least, but Mode 3 has never worked right.Thanks DarakNor.... I hope this mode will be run one day...
MM risk vs Mode 3
Mode 3 on the other hand is designed to work with one trade at 0.5 TP, one trade at full TP, and another trade at 1.5 the TP. If the 0.5TP succeeds, then the other trades are protected. Their SL is set equal to the entry point, and they won't loose us any money. That we can take 24 pip * 1/3 lot size as profit. If we take the full 48 pip TP, then the last trade has its SL moved up to a 24 pip profit. Essentially if the first trade wins, we get something. If we were trading 3 lots overall, and we had a 48 pip TP, we would make
24 pips if trade 1 TP, 2 & 3 SL
96 pips if trade 1 & 2 TP, 3 SL
144 pips if trade 1 2 & 3 TP
The pip winnings are calculated based on a single lot size, not 3 lots.
That is how it is supposed to work at least, but Mode 3 has never worked right.Daraknor, your explanations are very welcome, many thanks !
I am forward testing Phonix (5.6.7a, mode 3, FXDD) and, after a T/P, the 2 remaining trades are not correcting the S/L to the entry point. Should we correct it manually when we see it append until this mater is solved?
Daraknor, your explanations are very welcome, many thanks ! I am forward testing Phonix (5.6.7a, mode 3, FXDD) and, after a T/P, the 2 remaining trades are not correcting the S/L to the entry point. Should we correct it manually when we see it append until this mater is solved?
Please correct it manually if you want to see how it would trade... but we (as developers) really need to find out why this isn't working. I've been making a version with insane logging to run as a test. When I did this with other EA, backtesting resulted in many gigabytes of log files. I probably won't need to release this, but it is necessary to tell me what is going on. This seems like a relatively simple thing to do (in terms of complexity of code) but some little gear in the clock isn't turning right.