My FINAL Request for help With my EA!! - page 2

New comment
 
waaustin:
OK i'll try to explain a bit more clearly.

For Long position:

1. 5EMA cross above 13EMA signal for potential entry. This would be the first

condition that has to occur for an upcoming possible long entry point.

2. Now we would look for the 5EMA and 13EMA to cross above the 62EMA.

This would be the second condition signalling a valid long entry. The EA

could enter a long trade here if desired.

3. The third condition that I would like is to provide some adjustable

pip seperation between the 13EMA and 62EMA to actually execute a Long

trade. This would be adjustable from the EA settings by the trader, similar

to the "MinCrossDistance" in the UniversalMACross EA. So if this value is

set to 0 then the trade would actually be entered at Step 2 above.

4. Open position would Exit, or close, the next time the 5EMA crosses below

the 13EMA and, of course, any open trades can also be closed via TP, SL,

Trailing Stop, or can be closed manually by trader.

Will be the opposite to execute a Short trade.

1. 5EMA cross below 13EMA signal for potential entry. This would be the first

condition that has to occur for an upcoming possible short entry point.

2. Now we would look for the 5EMA and 13EMA to cross below the 62EMA.

This would be the second condition signalling a valid short entry. The EA

could enter a long trade here if desired.

3. The third condition that I would like is to provide some adjustable

pip seperation between the 13EMA and 62EMA to actually execute a Short

trade. This would be adjustable from the EA settings by the trader, similar

to the "MinCrossDistance" in the UniversalMACross EA. So if this value is

set to 0 then the trade would actually be entered at Step 2 above.

4. Open position would Exit, or close, the next time the 5EMA crosses below

the 13EMA and, of course, any open trades can also be closed via TP, SL,

Trailing Stop, or can be closed manually by trader.

I believe I have entry conditions 1 and 2 coded correctly in my EA. But I would appreciate if a programmer could check the logic on the entry conditions for me. Other thing is when I try to compile it I get an error message "\end_of_program' - ending bracket '}' expected". I add a } to the end of program then I get other errors when I compile again. Have not been able to figuure out where my problem is here.

I have not added any logic for Entry condition 3 above. I have looked at similar code in other EA's but have not been able to figure out how or where to incorporate it into my EA.

Anyway, I hope this is a bit more understandable.

And I'd like to say thanks to all (except "SquiggleFunk") for the replies and the help.

Which cross first?

BUY:

Condition for buy:

- 5 EMA crossed 62 EMA for buy.

Buy confirmation/validation (and EA will open buy order if):

- 5 EMA is above 13 EMA;

- 13 EMA is above 62 EMA;

- 13 EMA - 62 EMA >= MinCrossDistance.

Right?

Because 5 EMA and 13 EMA is not crossing 62 EMA in the same time sometimes. Sometimes on the same bar, but sometimes not.

Need clarification of the rule.

It is more easy to create indicator for your rules I think just for visual testing on the chart with arrows.

 

And please attach the image to know when exactly buy order should be opened and when sell should be opened.

Because in EAs are coding just one or two bars only. It is like this in almost all EAs (except some future possible Ichimoku EA where Chinkou Span line is crossing the price on historical data long time ago).

 
newdigital:
Which cross first?

BUY:

Condition for buy:

- 5 EMA crossed 62 EMA for buy.

Buy confirmation/validation (and EA will open buy order if):

- 5 EMA is above 13 EMA;

- 13 EMA is above 62 EMA;

- 13 EMA - 62 EMA >= MinCrossDistance.

Right?

Because 5 EMA and 13 EMA is not crossing 62 EMA in the same time sometimes. Sometimes on the same bar, but sometimes not.

Need clarification of the rule.

It is more easy to create indicator for your rules I think just for visual testing on the chart with arrows.

Please find indicator (not EA, just an indicator) according to this rule. And see the image with this indicator. If you need something different so change the rules above.

And please find the other 3 images with diferent Delta. Seems Delta = 3 is better for USDJPY D1 timeframe (Delta value mentioned in the names of the images).

 
 

Very good post.

Thanks.

 
zupcon:
I’ve read this thread with considerable amusement , Here are a few things to perhaps consider.

The reason why you’re not getting any sort of positive response is that you’re approaching the whole development process backwards.

For anyone who’s remotely serious about systems design, coding EA’s is generally the penultimate task in the system design process.

The first stage is generally to try to identify some behaviour you can exploit. In your case you believe Rob Booker’s 5/13/62 strategy may be a potential candidate for automation.

There can only be three reasons to think that the system is possible candidate

a) Someone else told you that were the case (possibly Rob Booker)

b) You’ve been trading the system manually, or

c) You’ve done exhaustive back tests and proved that to be the case for yourself.

If you’d done b or c then I’m sure you’d actually have something to bring to the party, you’d be able to express your requirements lucidly, you may even get someone’s attention if you could provide a reasonable estimate of system performance.

The second stage is to express the system into a set of clear objective rules that can be used by YOU to manually back test, and for a programmer to implement IF and only IF the strategy appears to have potential

The third stage is a manual back test

If the strategy looks OK, then perhaps we can start talking about developing expert advisors. This stage isn’t optional. At some point someone’s going to have to test that the trades taken by the EA are in accordance to the rules laid out at stage 2, and to do that you need something concrete to test against. Testing isn’t just a case of turning the EA on and seeing if its profitable or not, that’s step 5, performance evaluation.

The fourth stage is writing an EA

According to the Borel-Cantelli lemma probability theory, given enough time, a chimpanzee typing at random will almost surely type out a copy of one of Shakespeare's plays. On that basis it could probably knock out a profitable EA too. The approach your taking isn’t too dissimilar.

Your approach is basically to hope there’s a programmer stupid enough to commit his or her time to help develop a hare brained ill developed strategy. The amusing thing is you may very well find someone prepared to assist, however I’m not sure I'd want someone quite so stupid or desperate assisting me, and Im sure that you dont want this type of individual assisting you either

Good programmers are rare, their time is valuable, and they can differentiate between projects with potential and those that dont have potential. Unless you appear to be capable of expressing your requirements clearly, you wont get a second glance.

In addition to approaching this from the completely wrong angle (like many others) you’re requesting automation of a very well known strategy. Everyone and his dog know about Rob Bookers 5/13/62 strategy and most people who are capable of actually assisting you will probably have tried it at some point and realised that it’s a strategy that involves a considerable amount of discretion (like every other moving cross system)

This is not meant as criticism, just an observation why your not attracting the interest that you feel your project deserves.

I really hope your able to prove me wrong, and you suceed where countless others have failed. I wont even comment on your lack of exit strategy !

regards

zup

I understand what your saying. And Yes I have gone thru alot of the initial legwork and investigation of the method. I have written an EA that I plan on initially performing the backtesting and forward testing and then report the progress and results of the testing for any critique on the forum. I would not expect anyone to spend anytime on strategy "developement" of an EA until I've done a fair amount of the testing myself. I'm not really expecting any programmer to place alot of effort and time on EA developent and stategy testing. I'm comfortable with the strategy itself and how it needs to work.

I apologize for any misunderstanding concerning what specifically I was requesting help with.

The actual issue is that I am getting errors when I compile the code for this EA. I would like to get some guidance or assistance to help me figure out and eliminate the the compile errors I am getting. Because until I get the EA to compile, I can't even test what I've done myself.

Finally, Zupcon, I'm glad I was able to provide you a bit of humor today and thru this thread. At least you responded with constructive ideas and suggestions with regard to my complaints in Post #1. I appreciate your candid and considerate effort to help. Much more appropriate than the type of reply provided by "SquiggleFink" in Post #4.

Thanks again

 

waaustin,

The reason why most programmers won't take time to debug an EA is because it takes time to do it. In my experience, debugging someone else's program takes a lot longer than writing one from scratch. Someone may find some time and help you with it, but you will have to wait till someone proficient in programming finds some time.

I will take this opportunity to air another grievance. I can program EAs fairly well and have written quite a few of them. Most of the times I have been duped by postings like "Profitable System... now needs an EA". After I spent hours, I found that the system does not work and then the guy who posted it initially gives some excuse on how he uses certain discretions or some other baloney. Bottomline, I wasted my time by trusting someone.

I hope people who want their ideas to be programmed spend a little more time to list their rules objectively and mention all the caveats and discretionary elements, so as a decision can be made whether it is possible to build an EA based on those rules or not. Otherwise, I think it is misleading and will discourage helping development of really credible EAs.

 

Interesting thread indeed.

Regarding compling errors, check the equal/opposite curly braces. Mostly it may be a typo or an missing bracket.

Goodluck.

 
Kent:
Interesting thread indeed.

Regarding compling errors, check the equal/opposite curly braces. Mostly it may be a typo or an missing bracket.

Goodluck.

Thanks. I have checked for this type of thing several times already. I will recheck it again. This is why alot of times its good for a second set (or more) of eyes is helpful.

 
Maji:
waaustin,

The reason why most programmers won't take time to debug an EA is because it takes time to do it. In my experience, debugging someone else's program takes a lot longer than writing one from scratch. Someone may find some time and help you with it, but you will have to wait till someone proficient in programming finds some time.

I will take this opportunity to air another grievance. I can program EAs fairly well and have written quite a few of them. Most of the times I have been duped by postings like "Profitable System... now needs an EA". After I spent hours, I found that the system does not work and then the guy who posted it initially gives some excuse on how he uses certain discretions or some other baloney. Bottomline, I wasted my time by trusting someone.

I hope people who want their ideas to be programmed spend a little more time to list their rules objectively and mention all the caveats and discretionary elements, so as a decision can be made whether it is possible to build an EA based on those rules or not. Otherwise, I think it is misleading and will discourage helping development of really credible EAs.

Thank You. However, I'll say again, I'm not asking anyone to program or develope this strategy idea. I would just like to get some guidance or assistance to help me figure out and eliminate the compile errors I am getting. Because until I get the EA to compile, I can't even test what I've done myself.

As far as the validity of the strategy, it has been a manually proven strategy, as well as variations of it, used by many traders in the past and present. Yes, I agree that each trader may use or apply entry/exit rules a bit differently, but the method is still basically the same.

Thanks Again.

1234
New comment