My approach. The core is the engine. - page 45
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
It might be more convenient, but only a little, if you don't consider the labour involved.
As for semi-automatics. How much of its library is suitable for semi-automation tasks? Not at all. By about 5 per cent, on the whole.
The very idea of semi-automatic operation is not even disclosed, its main objectives and what is its essence.
====
This is roughly how I understand semi-automated operation: I looked at the chart, pinned the indicators on the chart, looked at it... and decided it would probably be a good idea to open if the cci indicator crosses the 100 level from bottom to top. I set up the notification system... lean back in my chair... The notification worked, I look at the chart and think - no, it is better to go in another direction, but when the csi indicator crosses the 200 level from the top downwards... Then, for example, I opened, but did not hit it. I set the system: close when two moving averages will cross, but in case of profit I will activate trailing... Something like this - to automate those thoughts that arise in the process... But what Piotr has proposed is just a gui, and it's not even clear why it is suggested as an automation tool. Or AutoGraph by Sergey Kovalev - this is really a system for semi-automated work. But Peter probably doesn't know about AftoGraf?
Exactly, it was the zeitgeist for handhelds!
If the GUI is not needed, why have they produced 50 articles on it? ($200 each).
It's an interesting question, but it's not the place to ask it.
It's an interesting question, but it's not the place to ask it.
Why did you write the gui library?
If you train in the tester, there are no other options. And I mean the usual case - an EA is hovering on the chart...
Yes. Above you have correctly laid out how it should be. At least this is how the customers justify their requests for creation of semi-automatic panels, and how they see their work in "semi-automatic mode". However, these panels allow us to switch to the automatic mode - just press the button with confirmation, and the panel turns into dashboard with statistics, and the Expert Advisor operates according to the parameters set on the panels.
But to do all this using PeterGUI - you still need to try. But why? If we can just write everything by ourselves. And it is easier and faster.
...
But to do all this using PeterGUI - you'll have to try a lot harder. What for? If you can write everything yourself. And it's easier and faster.
What do you mean?
Is it easier and faster to write the same gui by yourself than with my constructor?
What do you mean?
Is it easier and faster to write the same gui yourself than with my builder?
Yes.
Yes.
Give it a try. Give me an example. I posted the engine. Make your counterpart for starters. Took me an hour. And how long will it take you?
(An hour, - that's leisurely and with tea.)
Give it a try. Give me an example. I posted the engine. Make your counterpart for starters. Took me an hour. And how long will it take you?
(An hour, - that's leisurely and with tea).
You're 98.5% redundant, no offense, but your gui isn't for easy trading.
You have 98.5% redundancy, no offence, but your gui is not for easy trading
It's for conquering manual trading.
It's for conquering manual trading.
I repeat:
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and testing trading strategies
My approach. My approach.
Vitaly Muzichenko, 2018.12.10 20:19
You have 98.5% redundancy, no offense, but your gui is not for easy trading