Full-featured robot for MT5 - page 14
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
If only this text could be inserted in the code and this code would work as intended)
And if the entry is wrong, as soon as possible to identify it...
I was referring to those algorithms that are used in the robot to detect a wrong entry before the position is opened. After opening, it's up to the closing system. :)
Apparently I don't realise what the problem is?
Here we have:
1. algorithm1 which works well in situation1.
.....
123. algorithm123 which works well in situation123.
You need an algorithm that defines situations from 1 to 123. Then it's worth nothing to use algorithm33 etc. in situation33. :)
What is done "intuitively"? Is it defining the situation? Or what?
Exactly this. How do you determine that the situation is now number 123 ? And not 122? And not 121?
You have a hundred techniques - how can you tell if this one is going to be successful and this one is going to be unprofitable?
Exactly that. How do you determine that the situation is now number 123 ? And not 122? And not 121?
You've got a hundred techniques - how do you know if this one's going to be successful and this one's going to be unprofitable?
Wait, this is where we need to understand.
A hundred techniques... Here's technique 1 - how do you separate it from technique 33? What is the difference between 33 and 1?
Wait, this is where it needs to be understood.
A hundred techniques... Technique 1 - how do you separate it from technique 33? What's the difference between 33 and 1?
What's there to separate, they're different!
For example, entry by price/moving pair crossing and entry by fractal breakdown. Can we confuse these two techniques?
What is there to separate, they are different!
Let's say, entry by crossing the price and the moving average and entry by breakdown of a fractal. Can these two techniques be confused?
They are just names. Of course technique 1 differs from technique 33 in its name. How does one technique differ from another according to market conditions?
For example:Can entry at the price/moving average crossing and entry by breakdown of a fractal give entry at the same marketplace, on the same bar? Yes, they can. You have to ask yourself why.
But in another market situation one gives and the other dynamites :). Again, why? That's where the difference is... Not in a pretty wrapper. Fractals, sliders, neural networks, channels and other noodles are names of some means of determining the SITUATION in the market, on which the SIGNAL is given. Understand that you have to look at the cause, at the root. Then everything becomes clearer and simpler and there are a lot of paths to the simple algorithms you're hoping for.
Here are the market situations: 1. trend, 2. sideways (narrow flat on which you cannot make money), 3. flat (sideways channel on which you can make money from border to border), 4. A CRULAR price-price like 10.00000 instead of 10.12345 - a psychological stopper for traders. AND ALL! Did you forget something?
Now decompose your thousands of techniques into situations and there will only be 4 groups. Then check each group on the processing of its situation, where it works and gives the RIGHT signals. Leave one technique out of the group. Bottom line: 4 techniques out of thousands. no intuition is needed, intuition is self-manipulation of consciousness and only :)
They are names, that's all. Of course Technique1 differs from Technique33 in its name, but that's not what we're talking about. How does one technique differ from another by market conditions?
For example:will an entry at the price crossing and the moving average and an entry on a fractal breakthrough give rise to an entry in the same marketplace, on the same bar? Yes, they can. You have to ask yourself why.
But in another market situation one gives and the other dynamites :). Again, why? That's where the difference is... Not in a pretty wrapper. Fractals, sliders, neural networks, channels and other noodles are names of some means of determining the SITUATION in the market, on which the SIGNAL is given. Understand that you have to look at the cause, at the root. Then everything becomes clearer and simpler and there are a lot of paths to the simple algorithms you're hoping for.
Here are the market situations: 1. trend, 2. sideways (narrow flat on which you cannot make money), 3. flat (sideways channel on which you can make money from border to border), 4. A CRULAR price-price like 10.00000 instead of 10.12345 - a psychological stopper for traders. AND ALL! Did you forget something?
Now decompose your thousands of techniques into situations and there will only be 4 groups. Then check each group on the processing of its situation, where it works and gives the RIGHT signals. Leave one technique out of the group. Total: 4 techniques out of thousands. no intuition is needed, intuition is self-manipulation of consciousness and only :)
How do I know how these techniques differ in the state of the market? All these attempts to "understand" the market, but you can't understand it, because it's unsteady. Any working pattern starts to be actively used, and as a result it stops working, but the opposite one starts working. The key to a permanent profit is to constantly change the techniques, so that the one that is used by a few more participants and gives a profit.
All of these definitions - they are good "after the fact", when it is already clear that "there was a trend". And that's the point - we need to catch market conditions in advance.
That's why I'm not trying to "understand the market". I've simply taken a large number of very different systems, so that they are as diverse as possible. And just use those that work, trying to turn off those that don't. In my set there are always those that show a profit. The task is to highlight them in time and put them on the trade. As I said before, this task, unfortunately for me, is done more intuitively than intelligently.
I wonder how others solve similar problems using logic rather than intuition.
How do I know how these techniques differ in terms of the state of the market? It's all about trying to "understand" the market, which you wouldn't understand because it's unsteady. Any working pattern starts to be actively used, and as a result it stops working, but the opposite one starts working. The key to a permanent profit is to constantly change the techniques, so that the one that is used by a few more participants and gives a profit.
All of these definitions - they are good "after the fact", when it is already clear that "there was a trend". And that's the point, we need to catch market conditions in advance.
That's why I'm not trying to "understand the market". I've simply taken a large number of very different systems, so that they are as diverse as possible. And just use those that work, trying to turn off those that don't. In my set there are always those that show a profit. The task is to highlight them in time and put them on the trade. As I said before, this task, unfortunately for me, is done more intuitively than intelligently.
I wonder how similar tasks are solved by others using logic rather than intuition.
"It's all about trying to 'understand' the market, and you can't fucking understand it,"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't need to understand anything. Name me some market STATEMENTS that I haven't named?
"All these definitions - they're good 'after the fact' when you can already see that 'there was a trend'."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Every technique you have is good post-facto, when you can already see that it has given a good signal. :)
"It's all about trying to 'understand' the market, and you can't fucking understand it,"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't need to understand anything. Name me the STATEMENTS of the market that I haven't named?
"All these definitions - they are good "post facto" when you can already see that "there has been a trend"."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Every technique you have is good post-facto, when you can already see that it has given a good signal. :)
Well that's what I'm talking about - the question is choice. This question, unfortunately for me, is solved intuitively, and far from always correctly.
And if the entry is wrong, identify it as soon as possible...
I was talking about the algorithms used in the robot to detect a wrong entry BEFORE opening a position. After opening, it's up to the closing system. :)
Yes, the logic changes after the opening. In this interpretation the problem is closer to the essence. Days, Profit, Equity) are much more distant goals, in addition distracting from the essence.
1. define the trend edge. (long move relative to the average, rising counter volume above the average, round price nearby)
Determines entry against the trend (sideward movement should start, FROM round price, sufficient speed signal AGAINST the trend, limits the number of open positions).
Price behaviour (of a discrete function) linked to the description is one thing, and to the formulas is another thing, there are no figures in the description. An edge of a trend, as a long move relative to the average price movement can be interpreted differently, by different formulas and from different price variables. In order to understand how the price behavior correlates to the results of the TS logic, the formulas will be more correct than the verbal descriptions.