Diablo - page 25

New comment
 
JonKatana:
Show me how a deposit of $1,000 and a step size of $10 can be zeroed out in 8 steps? Or in 7, or 5?
And then what? Do I need it? You prove that your system is not pouring without manual intervention. I've done all the calculations in the thread. You can calculate the likelihood of a drain. Smart people will do the math. And I didn't claim it was exactly 8 or 5 steps. Exactly in your system it could be a different number of steps. Your proverbial dragon rules. So count for yourself as the author does. And if you don't want to - you don't need to shift the responsibility for what you yourself should have done in advance to others.
 
alexeymosc:
And then what? Do I need this? You prove that your system is not pouring without manual intervention. I've done all the calculations in the thread. You can calculate the likelihood of a drain. Smart people will do the math. And I didn't claim it was exactly 8 or 5 steps. Exactly in your system it could be a different number of steps. Your proverbial dragon rules. So count it yourself like the author. And you don't want to - you don't need to pass the buck on to others for something you yourself should have done in advance.
That's the way it is, that's the way it's always been. It is difficult to find the truth and everyone tries to shift the responsibility to the other. And it would seem to be a simple thing, to fix the algorithm and run it through the whole story.
 

tried

I have not been able to find the parameters that would not drain the system (constant)

Starting point, step and number of levels, as well as the way out of the series

 

Shit, I got caught up in this thread. Writing from my phone from a business trip in Europe. To code and run is one thing. Calculating in the abstract is another. I literally haven't slept at night thinking about the potential of griders. Now I'm more inclined to the flush diagnosis - I've been modelling and calculating.

And speaking of a particular gridiron, it's difficult to calculate because: not every pattern makes profit, and waiting for the needed movement stretches the process over a larger number of steps. This all together increases the chances of loss. If I am able to do it - I will post it here. I haven't figured out how to do it yet.

 

Once again, many thanks to the author for the great ideas.

And on the subject, it is very interesting to observe how a flock of kites attacked quite a working idea and is foaming at the mouth at the author )

There is some hidden meaning in all this, maybe they pay money for it).

I`ve noticed it many times on different forums. I am definitely checking all such ideas.


And now to the point: nobody forbids using the grid on different currency pairs and taking a step of 20-200 pips, depending on your taste.

You can close them all, by the total equity profit, or by each pair separately.

And moreover, no one forbids changing the pitch width, after a series of profits.

 
(judiciously) What's good about it? That the inadequates are grazing in their pen. (chuckles) Way to go.
 

A new version of Diablo's "little brother" - Tank v10.04.14:

// Tank v10.04.14
#property copyright "Jon Katana"
#property show_inputs
extern double Vol=0;
extern int Step=0,Spread=0;
int start()
{double Up=Bid+0.5*Step*Point;
double Down=Up-Step*Point;
OrderSend(Symbol(),OP_SELLLIMIT,Vol,Up,0,Up+(Step+Spread)*Point,Down+Spread*Point,0,0,0);
OrderSend(Symbol(),OP_SELLLIMIT,Vol,Up,0,Up+(Step+Spread)*Point,Down-(Step-Spread)*Point,0,0,0);
OrderSend(Symbol(),OP_BUYLIMIT,Vol,Down+Spread*Point,0,Down-Step*Point,Up,0,0,0);
OrderSend(Symbol(),OP_BUYLIMIT,Vol,Down+Spread*Point,0,Down-Step*Point,Up+Step*Point,0,0,0);
OrderSend(Symbol(),OP_BUYSTOP,2*Vol,Up+Spread*Point,0,Down,Up+Step*Point,0,0,0);
OrderSend(Symbol(),OP_SELLSTOP,2*Vol,Down,0,Up+Spread*Point,Down-(Step-Spread)*Point,0,0,0);
return(0);}

The number of orders is reduced to six, no supervision is required, the possible outcomes are +1, +1, +1, 0, 0, -1, -2, where 1 is the width of the corridor between the orders. The ratio of profitable closing probabilities to losing ones is approximately 1.8/1 (zero closures are taken into account but rejected as having no effect on the balance). If you are watching (after opening and closing orders of one side only, the orders of the other side are deleted) the ratio of profit closings to loss closings becomes 2/1. Orders are placed from the current price in both directions (up and down) at a distance of half a step.

 
JonKatana:

A new version of Diablo's "little brother" - Tank v10.04.14:

The number of orders is reduced to six, supervision is not required, possible outcomes are +1, +1, +1, 0, 0, -1, where 1 is the width of the corridor between the orders. Orders are placed from the current price in both directions (up and down) at the distance of half a step.


О! John! Good to read! Check it out!

What, with Avalanche and Rabbit? Retired/non-retired?

Check out the Learn to Earn Villagers1 and 2 branch - Ilana and Avalanche are there!

 
Roman.:


Oh! John! Good to read! I'll have a look!

What, with Avalanche and Rabbit? Retired/non-retired?

Check out the Learn to Earn Villagers1 and 2 branch - Ilana and Avalanche are there!

I trade daily on a real account. I look through the threads all the time.
 
It's bad enough to start with a loca three positions at once...
1...1819202122232425262728
New comment