Zennor,Zennor » Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:00 am wrote:Or more likely is that you are seeing some draw-down and think that the system has no legs. On that point I would have to disagree, remember this is a testing system and I think that we all agree that DD with this system can be quite daunting.
I am in agreement with you that the greatest deterrent in using this type of system is the large drawdowns it is capable of. Especially in terms of R:R. I believe your idea has merit - some type of a SL or a reduction in the number of trades you are carrying that are going in the opposite direction is necessary if you do not wish to suffer the potential for high drawdowns. Since the thread appears to be collecting a bit of dust this week from non-use, one can presume the DD is getting a bit much for many participants testing this EA. I tested a similar SL system to the one you are proposing a few years ago that brought the SL closer to BE as price action went in my favor. It had the result of lowering the win rate quite a bit (from 50% to 37.3%), but the average losing trade had a lower loss compared to the average winning trade. To give an idea on how that system functioned over a large sample of trades, the win rate was only 37.3%, the loss rate was 49.4%, and the break even rate was 13.3%. Not anything to get excited about. However, the drawdowns were kept to 32.9% of initial risk (for the trades that were stopped at a loss or BE) - meaning that instead of taking a 1R stop loss on 50% of the trades for the non-adjusting SL system, this system took a .329R stop loss on 62.7% of the trades. On a basket of 100 trades, it meant instead of losing 50R it lost 20.62R - which is quite an improvement in regards to the drawdowns.
As to this aspect, I am curious if we can get enough data to determine how your idea will affect the % of system winners vs losers. It will most certainly reduce the number of winners, since the trades being stopped out are not allowed to go on to become potential winners. After deploying your logic in a systematic way - meaning no discretionary aspect is allowed - we could get the numbers and see the win rate (vs loss rate) , and the avg of the winning trades (in dollars or your local currency) vs the losing trades, and begin to calculate the expectancy. Just a thought ...Zennor » Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:00 am wrote:Now the reason I believe this may work is due to the huge amount of trades which hit TP with no problems, also there is a high probability that every trade will be closed either for a loss or win by the end of the day enabling fresh trades to recoup the small amount of losses.