Avalanche - page 78

New comment
 
khorosh >>:

Лавинофобы, не вижу ваших комментариев к графику https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/124482/page76
Вы полагаете, что всё это из-за кривого тестера или будут ещё какие-то версии? 6600 сделок на интервале 2008.01.01 - 2010.04.01 при регулярном снятии средств
и отсутствие слива это о чём нибудь говорит? Или ничем не подкреплённое охаивание у нас имеет больший вес, нежели факты, которые, как говорят, упрямая вещь.


How about just for the sake of sport, transferring your EA to netting? I don't think it would be very difficult... I.e. instead of opening a loc - close and open with the same lot, but in the other direction. Mathematically the result should be exactly the same...
Personally, I'm really curious - what would happen to your EA if you completely abandoned locks, but kept the principle of avalanche (i.e. the principle of reversal at lots).

(Without any double meaning or sarcasm - really interesting).
 
lexandros >>:


Простите за назойливость, но не могли бы вы все же немного поподробней разжевать момент выделенный полужирным... Лично я не понял, что вы имеете ввиду..

A channel is defined and orders are placed in it according to a certain scheme. The number of orders depends on the width of the channel and available stop level, but not less than 4. There may be 4, 8, 12 orders, etc. If the pending order triggered, its volume is compensated by opening a limit order of the same volume. Thus, the total volume of pending orders is always kept constant. )))

 
lexandros писал(а) >>

... I.e. instead of opening a lock - close and open with the same lot, but in the other direction....
Danet :):):)
If it is "mathematically identical", you should open with a lot equal to "the difference of the next Loki order (that is, the lot the "original EA" would have opened in) and the previously closed order".
I rewrote my version to check if it was the same, but then I gave up that hassle and went back to "the normal algorithm of increasing lots".
The lots are increased by "adding" in several steps, so there is a bend "on the avalanche of losses". Something gives and narrowing of the range, but what yet I do not understand :)



ZS. Personally, I already have 4 systems on my demo - 3 "locking" systems (including one in which I found a logical error) and one "netting" system. In any case, there is no point in "squabbling". Just say fi and ignore the topic.
ZSY.

For "mathematical identity", you should open with a lot equal to "the difference of the next Loked order (the lot the "original EA" would have opened with) and the previous closed order".

The "formula" for lot identity is even more complicated. PapaJozh has written about it in the relevant cholivar thread
 
lexandros писал(а) >>


What if I transfer your Expert Advisor to netting just for the sake of hobby? I don't think it would be very difficult. I.e. instead of opening a lock - close and open with the same lot, but in the other direction. Mathematically the result should be exactly the same...
Personally, I'm really curious - what would happen to your EA if you completely abandoned locks, but kept the principle of avalanche (i.e. the principle of reversal at lots).

(Without any double meaning or sarcasm - really interesting).

I don't want to waste my time on it yet. If there is no MT4 I will make some experiments, but so far there is no need for that. I am busy improving my Expert Advisor's results.

Here is the last run of the test on the interval 01.01.08-01.04.10 profit rose to $21871. Profit for an avalanche is not too high, but it's the price to pay for stable
work.


 
lexandros >>:
Здесь даже проще чем мартин - это вообще "ОБЫЧНАЯ ПЕРЕВОРОТНАЯ" стратегия - если выжать "сухой остаток"
Открываемся пофиг в какую сторону. И ждем достижения определенного сл/тп - так же именуемом в данной лавине "коридором". По достижении тп - радуемся и ликуем.
The difference is that at Avalanche your deposit will only grow. Constantly. Continuously. All the time you are trading.
In a "regular reversal" you (or the terminal) will close the loss at each reversal. Time after time. The deposit is melting before your eyes. And only when the price finally moves in the right direction do you make a profit. The advantage of the "regular reversal" is that only one order is active and you can change the width of the corridor on the fly at every reversal.
 
JonKatana >>:
Отличие в том, что в "Лавине" у вас депозит будет только расти. Постоянно. Непрерывно. Все время, пока вы торгуете.
В "обычной переворотной" при каждом развороте вы (или терминал) закрываете убыток. Раз за разом. Депозит тает на глазах. И только когда цена наконец пойдет в нужном направлении, получаете прибыль. Плюсы "обычной переворотной" - активен только один ордер и можно на ходу менять ширину коридора при каждом развороте.

Are you sure there is nothing wrong with you? Or is this your "Happy April 1st" greeting?

===

That's it. It's hopeless.

 
To get a lock with two (or more) active oppositely directed orders on the MT5 platform and any other platform that prohibits the simultaneous existence of oppositely directed orders, you need to open a second trading account, with the deposit divided equally between the two trading accounts. Then launch two terminals on the same instrument, each with its own account. On the first account you only place Buy Stop orders, on the second - only Sell Stop orders at a distance of the "Avalanche" corridor from Buy Stop orders in the first account terminal.
That's it - you have a working lock without any closures and reversals within the limitations imposed by the creators of MT5. If the platform limits even the number of one-sided orders to one - you can open at least ten accounts and place one order of the required direction on one and the same instrument on each of them.
The banking group is trying to kick back by introducing artificial restrictions - so far it is not succeeding.
 
Svinozavr >>:

Вы уверены, что с вами все в порядке? Или это "с 1-м апреля" так поздравляете?

Look at the charts above in the thread. Take a good look.
 
Svinozavr >>:

Вы уверены, что с вами все в порядке?


This is public autotraining
 
JonKatana >>:
Для получения замка с двумя (или более) активными противоположно направленными ордерами на платформе MT5 и любой другой, запрещающей одновременное существование противоположно открытых ордеров нужно открыть второй торговый счет, депозит разделить между двумя торговыми счетами поровну. Затем запустить два терминала на одном и том же инструменте, каждый со своим счетом. На первом счете выставляете только ордера Buy Stop, на втором - только Sell Stop на расстоянии коридора "Лавины" от ордеров Buy Stop в терминале первого счета.
Все - вы в пределах ограничений, навязанных создателями MT5, имеете работающий замок без всяких закрытий и переворотов. Если платформа будет ограничивать даже количество односторонних ордеров одним - открываете хоть десять счетов и на каждом ставите по одному ордеру нужного направления на одном и том же инструменте.
Концерн банков пытается брыкаться, вводя искусственные ограничения - пока у него ничего не получается.


Any other platforms to work with Avalanche? How long have you personally been using it, or have you tested it (if it is not a secret)?
1...717273747576777879808182838485...523
New comment