OddevenEA : Based on pure probability :) and luck.... - page 8
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
FYI - original version results for IBFX--same period
Thank you saintMo...
so the no trade zone idea yields no improvements assuming backtesting in MT4 is accurate.
ES
P.S. I will leave the current forward test active (all 19 pair V0.05) and anybody can log in to watch...
Login: 1675696
Read Only: cax16xs
version 6 atr off for better comparison with version 2
So in summary my results for usd/jpy, 5min, 2007-trading .1 lot are as follows:
Original -2,578, 30% drawdown
Vers2 (w rsi added) -4,025, 47% drawdown
Vers6, atr = false -3,745, 44% drawdown
Vers6, atr=true -1,488, 22% drawdown
(version 6 allows for 45-55 sell-buy zone)
ohhh..
so the latest version is better!!!
Ok i will load it up on a basket of 8 pair at IBFX..
ES
By the way SM...Thank you very much...
So in summary my results for usd/jpy, 5min, 2007-trading .1 lot are as follows:
Original -2,578, 30% drawdown
Vers2 (w rsi added) -4,025, 47% drawdown
Vers6, atr = false -3,745, 44% drawdown
Vers6, atr=true -1,488, 22% drawdown
(version 6 allows for 45-55 sell-buy zone)Folks please do not misunderstand me..
Backtesting is to be used in the way I just demonstrated...the comparisons and differences are important to notice..but do not live and die by them...
Good Forward Testing to US!..I will leave the original Forward test open and running for you to follow and I will open up a new demo now for you folks to follow also...stay tuned for login info...
ES
Hello...
This thread is developed faster than I expected while i sleep because of having some cold.
Ah... this bad weather...
Sorry I can't always monitor this thread guys
I think it's time to update first post again...
Hello...
This thread is developed faster than I expected while i sleep because of having some cold.
Ah... this bad weather...
Sorry I can't always monitor this thread guys
I think it's time to update first post again...Usah bimbang. We're taking care ourself here. Please take care of your health, come back when you're fully recover. God bless.
Regards
David
Ok fellah's, I do not like MM automation in general (I am old fashioned and I will need to hear from you guys to be swayed)...but you guys can test it yourselves because David has a special decrease factor in there. I will simply add 5 minilots (0.50) for each 1K increase in balance for now (remember the RSI gooses it to double when in agreement).
This test uses the latest version to date that has the ATR of the pair to figure TP's and SL's (You can use this on any pair).
This gambler EA intentionally enters in for no reason at all and picks a direction based on the odd or even value of the numerical time value when it is looking for the trade (adjustable in the inputs). I use the default of zero, so it "looks" at just after the exit time of a trade (it is always in) without a shift...no shit! It has no reason why it is in the trade other than if the time is odd it is long and if the time is even then short...also the RSI must be > 55 or < 45. The thread author demam emas is the thread author and the creator of this casino and David and SM have contributed greatly with code and backtests...and my contribution...err...ehhh...well...I just talk a lot with different text size and colors (and endless late edits:))..
There is a RSI filter to double the bet size when it is above 55 (long) or below 45 (short) at the time this gambler is "looking"...and there is a "no trade or reentry zone" in the 45-55 RSI band. Also there is some custom MM in here...and to be honest with you...I do not use it because I do not understand it...but it is Davids creation and maybe he might explain it in detail with pictures.
v 0.06 on IBFX DEMO 1K Initial Balace
Login: 1678440
Read Only: t6mibic
M5 Pair:
GBP/USD
EUR/CHF
AUD/CAD
NZD/JPY
GBP/CHF
AUD/JPY
NZD/USD
EUR/CAD
INPUTS:
Magic_number:"5050"
Min_Stop_Loss:
Min_Take_Profit: "0"
Slippage: "3"
RSI.Period: "9"
BuyZoneAbove: "55.0"
SellZoneBelow: "45.0"
UseATR: "true"
ATR.Period: "24"
ATR.TimeFrame: "1440"
Shift: "0"
TP_VAR: "54.0"
SL_VAR: "46.0"
Use.MM: "false"
Lot: "0.1"
AccountType
0: Broker that only allow 0.10 smallest lot. Such as North Finance, MiG
1: Normal Standard/Mini account with 0.01 lot = 10cent/pip value on EURUSD
2: Micro NANO account like AleccoFX, Interbankfx with 0.01lot = 1cent/pip value on EURUSDm
AccountType: "2"
MaximumRisk: "2.0"
DecreaseFactor: "0"
MinLot: "0.01"
MaxLot: "100.0"
ES
David,
V0.06 is entering in the "no trade zone". Is there a way you can forego an entry when the RSI is between the user BuyZone & SellZone inputs? ...for example...55 and 45? It can keep re-checking and that instance that it finds the zone it can evaluate the entry direction and the betsize according to the method.
I think that it evaluates betsize correctly...but again the betsize is also dependent on the zone, MM & decrease factor that the user sets TOGETHER with making an entry AT ALL.
ES
P.S. I will post a login to the forward test as planned as soon as I get the reply from David Folks...
Well, if the EA turn up to be good, then its my pleasure to work with you. Even if it ended up just a piece of shit, I still having good time contribute to the community. Here you go. Above 55 buy ; below 45 sell. Added decrease factor cut and paste from Moving average.mq4 provided by MetaQuotes. So it will cut down the lot size during lossing streak
Regards
DavidI am getting some private questions about this RSI zone...Remember the backtestors have not published backtests for various levels yet.
The reason for my theory was that there is more noise around the 50 RSI level which was the original decision point to allow a doubling of betsize. The idea was to obtain a more decisive momentum to allow the doubling to be more effective. Backtests from two different testers reported an improvement with just using the 50 level...and one backtestor reported even a better result with a gap zone 55/45, eventhough his overall profitabilty numbers did not agree with the first tester.
anyways...I hope the "thinking" is cleared up to some now...
ES
P.S. I am really up in the air now as I think the original gap intent is not functioning in the code...rendering forward and backtesting void...