Diablo - page 13

New comment
 
and no one could make a script into an EA.
 
JonKatana:

For two reasons:

1) Orders cannot be placed from a certain level (resistance, support, Fibonacci, Rabbit...)

2) There are dozens of orders, and they are not placed instantly. During this time Ask can shift from the initial value, which unpredictably moves the places of placing of orders and their Take Profit and Stop Loss. This will allow the dealing centre to open orders at levels not by a pair, but to "pull" separate orders, without catching the second order from the pair, and then to drive them into losses, which will ruin the whole system.


I'm going to try it now: ))))
 
Tried my turkey to roll out the warrants, let's see what happens....
 
it is not quite clear when the whole bed needs to be closed????
 
Ran it in the tester, it's losing more often than it's picking up. It all depends on the price trajectory. I.e. it all comes down to "predictions" again)
 
JonKatana:

Diablo v09.02.12 (Immortal Version)

Orders of two types are placed at a certain distance from the price at equal intervals: Straight orders (Buy Stop up from the price and Sell Stop down from the price) and inverted orders (Sell Limit up from the price and Buy Limit down from the price). Orders Buy Stop and Sell Limit are placed at the same levels (in pairs), as well as Sell Stop and Buy Limit orders.

All orders have the same volume and Stop Loss equal to the step between the orders.

Straight orders (Buy Stop and Sell Stop) have no Take Profit. The inverted orders (Sell Limit and Buy Limit) have Take Profit that increases arithmetically: the first order (the nearest to the price) has one step between the orders, the second (a bit more distant) has three steps, the third has five steps and so on.


A script for placing orders:

The system is completely indestructible. Left to itself, in the end it always closes with a profit or at zero.

Very good is the trend without fallback on the step size - the profit increases like a snowball, allowing to collect one price movement several times. On the flat the profit is moderate or goes to zero. The slowest variant is the pattern "dragon", when the price moves in one direction, but rolls back from each level by one step, then goes further. In this case it will just take a little longer to reach profit or zero.

Therefore calculate the step between the levels for placing orders so that the price does not touch the already passed levels by mini-corrections.

Thescheme can be left unattended as long as the price does not go beyond the levels where the orders are placed. Another variant is to follow the Diablo and close it when some profit (for example, the size of one step) is reached with subsequent rearrangement of orders again, or just to close it once with a profit.

I argue that even if the system does not go beyond the orders and turns around, we will very quickly fall back to the initial level of balance, or even below it. We need to organize "Breakeven Trailing" that is to set the level of losses so as not to fall below the balance, I understand it somehow, and so ....... the trend will turn around and it will be hell, and you have a lot of positions open in the other direction. It's a total mess. We need to think about an exit.....
 
OnGoing:
Ran it in the tester, it's losing more often than it's picking up. It all depends on the price trajectory. I.e. it all comes down to "predictions" again.)

What did you test with, and how do you get out of trades? This is important here....
 
nikelodeon:

What did you test with, and how do you get out of the trades? This is important here....

I simply made the code as an owl and ran it visually from several different dates.

The result, as I've already said, is a stable minus.

The author must have in mind several definite scenarios of price movement when composing the grid but in fact there are a lot of variants and it is impossible to account for them all even if we reconstruct the grid after the price.

Anyway, another "perpetuum")

 

By the way, the first 2 levels (closest to the price) are useless at all. If both are triggered at once, they only eat up 4 spreads.

That is why they can be at least placed at a minimum distance from each other, otherwise the price just idly walks these two levels without any profit.

Besides, we are asking to close these pairs using CloseBy. It would be a saving of 1 spread on each.

But it would be if the whole idea was working of course, but it is not worth wasting time IMHO.

 
Yeah, now the course has gone backwards by just a few pips and the profit is gone. In other words, if you don't close in time, you're screwed :(((( You have to exit on time again.... And the profits are coming in through the nose. If we go with the trend, we get the right orders, and others eat up half of the profit, and when the rate goes in the other direction, that's it.... ((((. But I'm thinking of doing something about my strategy. It could make a lot of sense....
1...67891011121314151617181920...28
New comment