Avalanche - page 426
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
objections to a dynamically changing corridor are not accepted - the market is a dynamic process, so the corridor changes with the market dynamics
SZZY: I cannot guarantee the accuracy of the formula (the figure is 10 bars and Ê=0.30), but the formula for the corridor change is clear.
Thank you.
Only starting from the 3rd order, besides the b/u exit, there should also be an exit by some kind of constraint (SL).
You are not a supporter of the method of going to breakeven for an infinite number of flips, are you?
Thank you.
Only from the 3rd order onwards, apart from the exit by b/u, there should also be an exit by some kind of limit (SL).
You don't advocate the method of going to breakeven for an infinite number of flips, do you?
You're welcome, I thought this thread would be a mental stimulus for you, so I threw in something that really works.
If you have decided to seriously look into this subject, I can give you a hint. From the 5th order you have to use risk management to make a nice exit with a small loss.
Where's the Avalanche2 thread, the one where I commented on its advice? Deleted?
There was a solar flare, they say.
There was a solar flare, they say.
You're welcome, I thought this thread would be a mental exercise for you, so I gave you something that really works.
If you seriously decide to investigate this topic, I can suggest that from the 5th turn you need to use risk management, to exit with a loss of not a large amount - the system is quite good on this principle, because it often fails to breake out completely, literally a few pips, and if you do not use risk management, you will over sit and have another flip.
Igor, with all due respect, I can't reconcile the following things: on the one hand "it really works " and on the other "all levels are dynamic, impossible to formalize, the loss is not a large amount, etc." ???
If you could elaborate a bit more on - " really works ".
Igor, with all due respect, I can't reconcile the following things: on the one hand "really works " on the other "all levels are dynamic, impossible to formalize, loss as a small amount, etc." ???
If you can elaborate a bit more on " it really works ".
what really works is a dynamically changing corridor - there is a profit and no adjustment, you change the corridor always and when the order is in the market in profit and when the order is in loss - considering the zero bar you may change the corridor, but the minimum corridor is about 50 points and the maximum one according to the formula, or rather the maximum corridor is not - it changes according to the formula
for this code: https: //www.mql5.com/ru/code value extern int Distance=25 - not constant, minimum 50, but .......
The loss is at your discretion: you can take 1% of equity or a fixed amount multiplied by the number of current flips. i.e. after the fourth flip, you make a loss, for example $10 per 1st flip = -$50 on the 5th flip, then -$60....
what really works is dynamically changed corridor - there is a profit and without any adjustment, change the corridor always and when the order in the market is in profit and when the order is in loss - taking into account the zero bar you may change the corridor, but the minimum corridor is about 50 pps, and the maximum one according to the formula, or rather the maximum corridor does not exist - it changes according to the formula
the loss - it is at your discretion, you can take 1 per cent of equity, you can also take a fixed sum multiplied by the number of current rollovers - i.e. after the 4th rollover, take a loss, for example, $10 per first rotation = -50$, then -60$....
I appreciate the details. But still, what is the confidence in this strategy based on? Statistical research? A tester? Many years of successful experience in the real world?
Appreciate the details described. But, still, you have confidence in the workability of this strategy based on what? Stat. research? A tester? Many years of successful experience on the real?
I don't have any effect on my trading robot.
I have already written in the branch about loki - as an independent trading system - any locker, or an avalanche - is worthless, and in combination with the average effective TS (I deal with trend systems) the overall result increases several times - even without optimization - probably a viable system, I think as a workout for the mind will suit my task, I'm currently training on MT5, hope to release a multicurrency to the real - so I do not do avalanches and such like them
SZS: A screenshot! )))))))
I've already written in the branch about loki - as a standalone trading system - any locker, well, or avalanche - is of no value, and in combination with the average effective TS (I deal with trend systems) the overall result increases several times - even without optimization - it is probably a viable system
I totally agree with you.
IgorM:
If you want to use my drawings as a warm-up for your mind, you'll be fine,
Dynamic channel doesn't fit in the model I'm using at the moment (static one would be great ))), but it's a direction worth considering, I've thought about it too.
SZS: screenshot! )))))))