The Hidden Pending EA

[Over60]

Hi Milanese and followers,

Sorry, I´m still confused, because I tried some different settings with version W, but partial close did not perform, even by using new instances, by testing with and without stacking or by OOTB-setting with only a single order in one direction.

Might be, that I did disregard something?

Maybe a follower did already test this feature and can confirm that it works?

It would be nice to attach a set-file, which did perform this feature for testing.

With kind regards

Over60

[milanese]

Hi Milanese and followers,

Sorry, I´m still confused, because I tried some different settings with version W, but partial close did not perform, even by using new instances, by testing with and without stacking or by OOTB-setting with only a single order in one direction.

Might be, that I did disregard something?

Maybe a follower did already test this feature and can confirm that it works?

It would be nice to attach a set-file, which did perform this feature for testing.

With kind regards

Over60

the function works in my live tests without problems , OOTB it is deactivated.., if you have have problems send a trade exampel and I can take a look what happened, best with the expert log entries..
Make sure to set Use_SetBEAndJump to true and too PartCloseEnabled, if partclose is enabled you will see it in the userInfo, where you will see how much lot in initial and stack trades will be closed. Note the partial close closes only with setting BE. I have attached you a setfile I used..
Cheers

Tommaso

[Over60]

Hi Milanese and followers,

In the meantime partial close (PC) with BE = true was set to 5 Pips and PC was executed nearby > 30 Pips > BE in profit, with TP = 100, PC = 50% enabled and displayed.

There was not a setting problem or bug, but the PC-Trouble, I had, was caused by a general misunderstanding.

I can imagine that some followers came also into trouble to understand the functionality correctly.

Basically referring BE, it is correct by discrete trading to move first the SL to BE to protect the margin and than let the order run open end by further SL-trailing with reduced lotsize.

By misunderstanding, now I know, why this troubles happened and why appr. > 30 Pips in reference to BE-Level in profit the EA did only perform PC, with BE set = 4 or 5 pips.

In respect and conjunction to Use_setBEAndJump …. partial close will only be executed, if the jumping-SL defined by SLMiNDistancetoPrice hits at BE (…in profit), if price has moved > 30 Pips + BE-distance (SLDistanceToprice) into profit.

Influenced by other trade-managers, where BE was defined as a first profit-level to be executed, independent of the trailing jumping feature. I understand and I assumed erroniously that the SL-feature was exklusive for trailing open end.

Hope my statements make sense to follow.

By reducing the SLMinDistancetoPrice, we can trail and watch, how it works actually.

Referring definitions, from my point of view, it is easier to catch 5 or 10 Pips immediately at BE with PC by using first a bigger lotsize in the starting period, instead of the risk and hopefully waiting, that the SL-distance to actual price by jumping-SL to BE will move the defined distance into profit to perform and to trigger the BE- PC.

Therefore I would prefer to use Partial Close immediately at BE (e.g. 5-10 Pips distance to entry) used as a first TP-Level without conjunction to the Jumping-SL, which should work independently to trail open end.

Maybe that needs an additional setting to trigger PC immediately at the defined BE-Distance.

Moving on…

With kind regards
Over60

PS and BTW: It seems to me, that stacking sometimes did not work proper by the defined distance. Under considering fast price-movement, occasionally stacked orders were opened twice.

[milanese]

Hi Milanese and followers,

In the meantime partial close (PC) with BE = true was set to 5 Pips and PC was executed nearby > 30 Pips > BE in profit, with TP = 100, PC = 50% enabled and displayed.

[hide]There was not a setting problem or bug, but the PC-Trouble, I had, was caused by a general misunderstanding.

I can imagine that some followers came also into trouble to understand the functionality correctly.

Basically referring BE, it is correct by discrete trading to move first the SL to BE to protect the margin and than let the order run open end by further SL-trailing with reduced lotsize.

By misunderstanding, now I know, why this troubles happened and why appr. > 30 Pips in reference to BE-Level in profit the EA did only perform PC, with BE set = 4 or 5 pips.

In respect and conjunction to Use_setBEAndJump …. partial close will only be executed, if the jumping-SL defined by SLMiNDistancetoPrice hits at BE (…in profit), if price has moved > 30 Pips + BE-distance (SLDistanceToprice) into profit.

Influenced by other trade-managers, where BE was defined as a first profit-level to be executed, independent of the trailing jumping feature. I understand and I assumed erroniously that the SL-feature was exklusive for trailing open end.

Hope my statements make sense to follow.

By reducing the SLMinDistancetoPrice, we can trail and watch, how it works actually.

Referring definitions, from my point of view, it is easier to catch 5 or 10 Pips immediately at BE with PC by using first a bigger lotsize in the starting period, instead of the risk and hopefully waiting, that the SL-distance to actual price by jumping-SL will move the defined distance into profit to perform and to trigger the BE- PC.

Therefore I would prefer to use Partial Close immediately at BE (e.g. 5-10 Pips distance to entry) used as a first TP-Level without conjunction to the Jumping-SL, which should work independently to trail open end.

Maybe that needs an additional setting to trigger PC immediately at the defined BE-Distance.

Moving on…

With kind regards
Over60[/hide]
PS and BTW: It seems to me, that stacking sometimes did not work proper by the defined distance. Under considering fast price-movement, occasionally stacked orders were opened twice.

I have here never seen stacking orders opening twice(or more times) at same price, but if this should happen, please let me know with sending the expert log ecc. than I will look in the code what could cause this. Important is to make sure that you have really on each pair only one instance of the EA run, as often such thingies are caused by "forgotten" charts with the EA attached.
In theory there could be coded a partclose independing from the BE setting, I would add this function, if it would be for more users of interest.
Again for clarifying BEProfit are in all my EA's the Pips added to the BE. SLMinDistanceToPrice is the setting used to select the distance needed for moving the SL to BE and after BE to move in win. Here in most strategies a higher distance brings better results, as it is so possible to stay much longer in winning trend positions, for scalping with high lot this maybe different.

Cheers

Tommaso

[Over60]

Hi Milanese,

I apologize, indeed you are a clairvoyance, because out of view of my charts, there was still a HP working twice.

I would appreciate for day trading and scalping, to have the possibility for BE-PC with trailing.
Maybe followers will request it.
For swing or long-term trading, I confirm your statements fully, that make no sense.

Hope you were live trading short EUR, that was like printing money since yesterday.
The “free fall” will perhaps continue.

Moving on… and thanks for your reply.

With kind regards
Over60

[Jollyroger]

Hi Tommaso!

Would it be possible to add an ATR stop to this fantastic EA so that all orders, market and pending, can be managed and still use the other EA features? I am looking for an ATR stop that would allow me to change the ATR Period, Moving Average Period, and the Moving Average Type when the EA is opened.

If this is a major coding effort I can use a Trade Manager to do the job but this requires me to remove the pending EA from the pair. Since I use the Pending EA multiple times on the same pair it is both inconvenient and confusing to my aging mind to have to keep changing EA's on multiple pairs. Thanks for your consideration.

Roger

[milanese]

Hi Tommaso!

Would it be possible to add an ATR stop to this fantastic EA so that all orders, market and pending, can be managed and still use the other EA features? I am looking for an ATR stop that would allow me to change the ATR Period, Moving Average Period, and the Moving Average Type when the EA is opened.

If this is a major coding effort I can use a Trade Manager to do the job but this requires me to remove the pending EA from the pair. Since I use the Pending EA multiple times on the same pair it is both inconvenient and confusing to my aging mind to have to keep changing EA's on multiple pairs. Thanks for your consideration.

Roger

Hi Roger,
thanks for your post. I see your point. Sure it would be easier to manage with one EA all as using more EA's. Just to be sure, you want that the EA manages all open orders(or user can select if he/she wants all or only the magicnumber of the EA managed) in the pair you have it attached with setting ATR SL and moving the SL according to the ATR, with user inputs about ATR TF and Period? The MA part, I must admit, I did not understood so far, this you should specify..
I will this consider for the next update, the problem is always that adding new functions makes the EA more complex and more difficult to use. But I like the idea, it would be great to hear the opinion from others here about this...

Cheers

Tommaso

[Jollyroger]

[.

Hi Roger,
thanks for your post. I see your point. Sure it would be easier to manage with one EA all as using more EA's. Just to be sure, you want that the EA manages all open orders(or user can select if he/she wants all or only the magicnumber of the EA managed) in the pair you have it attached with setting ATR SL and moving the SL according to the ATR, with user inputs about ATR TF and Period? The MA part, I must admit, I did not understood so far, this you should specify..
I will this consider for the next update, the problem is always that adding new functions makes the EA more complex and more difficult to use. But I like the idea, it would be great to hear the opinion from others here about this...

Cheers

Tommaso

Hi Tomasso:

I was originally going to send this as a PM rather than a post since this it is rather long. I felt, however, than somebody might pick up an idea of “what” or “what not” to do from the post.

The easiest way to answer your questions would be to tell you how I trade your Pending EA. I have created two separate sets for a Buy and a Sell. I watch 20 pairs on H4 TF using HGI indicator modified to show only wavy signals. When I see a “blue” wavy signal I initiate the EA in the direction of the trade. My EA set files currently are set using stacking, breakeven & jump, Part close, and SL & TP. I close the all trades when the opposite “yellow” wavy line appears.

That is the perfect scenario. Obviously the perfect scenario rarely occurs and the components of the EA must be relied on to close the great majority of the trades since I can't watch it 24/7. My profit depends on the EA usage of the Jump, SL and TP. Primarily the SL. In playing with the various options manually an ATR stop seems to work the best. I use the 14 period ATR with a 1.0 multiplier. (Please disregard my use of the MA in my earlier post. That came from an ATR Channel indicator with which I was experimenting).

A fixed stop does not flex with the volatility of the trade and usually results in getting out too soon or too late depending on the range selected. With your EA using pending orders I don't have to worry much about immediate reversals so I don't usually use a close stop. On the other hand a loose stop makes you pay a higher price when the trade reverses and you have not been watching it closely.

I quite agree that adding new functions to an EA makes the EA more difficult to use. I use very few EA's for just that reason. Many are way too complicated for someone who is not totally computer literate. I have been using your EA separately on each individual pair and quite frankly don't know if “managing all trades” would work for me with two different “directional” sets.

Thanks for your consideration.

Roger

[milanese]

Hi Tomasso:

I was originally going to send this as a PM rather than a post since this it is rather long. I felt, however, than somebody might pick up an idea of “what” or “what not” to do from the post.

The easiest way to answer your questions would be to tell you how I trade your Pending EA. I have created two separate sets for a Buy and a Sell. I watch 20 pairs on H4 TF using HGI indicator modified to show only wavy signals. When I see a “blue” wavy signal I initiate the EA in the direction of the trade. My EA set files currently are set using stacking, breakeven & jump, Part close, and SL & TP. I close the all trades when the opposite “yellow” wavy line appears.

That is the perfect scenario. Obviously the perfect scenario rarely occurs and the components of the EA must be relied on to close the great majority of the trades since I can't watch it 24/7. My profit depends on the EA usage of the Jump, SL and TP. Primarily the SL. In playing with the various options manually an ATR stop seems to work the best. I use the 14 period ATR with a 1.0 multiplier. (Please disregard my use of the MA in my earlier post. That came from an ATR Channel indicator with which I was experimenting).

A fixed stop does not flex with the volatility of the trade and usually results in getting out too soon or too late depending on the range selected. With your EA using pending orders I don't have to worry much about immediate reversals so I don't usually use a close stop. On the other hand a loose stop makes you pay a higher price when the trade reverses and you have not been watching it closely.

I quite agree that adding new functions to an EA makes the EA more difficult to use. I use very few EA's for just that reason. Many are way too complicated for someone who is not totally computer literate. I have been using your EA separately on each individual pair and quite frankly don't know if “managing all trades” would work for me with two different “directional” sets.

Thanks for your consideration.

Roger

I will in the next days publish a version with ATR SL/TP and moving SL functions .

Cheers

Tommaso

[Jollyroger]

Thanks Tomasso!