Rinse 'n Repeat

[Bruster400]

I do believe this grid system still needs work, not just on trying to offset the biggest losing trades, but also in winning more pips on the winning trades. My biggest disappointment in the graph above was not the multiple distant losing sell trades which is always to be expected when grid trading, but how little profit was booked by all the successful buy trades in a strong move.

A long straight run will always leave this EA in DD, that's the nature of grid trading. The profits grow linearly and the losses build exponentially so you'll never have enough profits to close all your losses - you're always relying on a retrace. However, the whole point of this bot is that it copes with this issue better than standard grid traders. The big wins that you were hoping for from the strong move have happened, it's just that they've been "offset" against the even bigger losses of your worst losing sell trades. In this way, this bot has kept down DD significantly and banked a few pips in the process.

The big issue you're facing is that you're account is over-traded - the current view on balance requirements is 0.01 lots per $2000 per pair and even that doesn't come with a comfort guarantee!! Today's price action wasn't particularly unusual and anybody trading this bot needs to do so with a full understanding of what it's capable of.

[lwphoon]

Hello guys,

I have been running RnR on demo on GBPUSD since last week and results has been great, netting about 1000+ pips. I am currently on the latest version and a couple of hours ago, GBPUSD started trending downwards and the drawdown increases as it moves downwards more and more.

Its on -1500+ pips at the moment. Its heavy on the buy and the most of the sells are closed

rnrfloating.png

I went checking the closed trades and saw that the sell trades are offsetting on simple first.

rnrresults.png

As I was playing with the simulator, if we encounter this scenario, should it offset the buy side first before doing the simple?

[Bruster400]

As I was playing with the simulator, if we encounter this scenario, should it offset the buy side first before doing the simple?

The majority of those closures are single sided complex closures - anything more than two trades closed at the same time is "complex". This is the reason that we've put this feature as optional and we're looking for parallel test results to prove whether it's better on or off. It's also why we're saying 0.01 per $2000 too but there's only so many times I can make that point...

Anyone out there got parallel results from one of the long runs from today?

[lwphoon]

As I was playing with the simulator, if we encounter this scenario, should it offset the buy side first before doing the simple?

The majority of those closures are single sided complex closures - anything more than two trades closed at the same time is "complex". This is the reason that we've put this feature as optional and we're looking for parallel test results to prove whether it's better on or off. It's also why we're saying 0.01 per $2000 too but there's only so many times I can make that point...

Anyone out there got parallel results from one of the long runs from today?

Thank you Bruster for the explanation. Understand your advise that 0.01 per $2000 but this is still on a demo and its a habit that I usually try these tests on $1000 accounts.

[Gertje]

The majority of those closures are single sided complex closures - anything more than two trades closed at the same time is "complex". This is the reason that we've put this feature as optional and we're looking for parallel test results to prove whether it's better on or off. It's also why we're saying 0.01 per $2000 too but there's only so many times I can make that point...

Anyone out there got parallel results from one of the long runs from today?

Hi Bruster,

I've got EURAUD, but since these started with a news spike I don't believe the results are worth looking at;

Global Prime - Empty4 4.png

[Bruster400]

I've got EURAUD, but since these started with a news spike I don't believe the results are worth looking at;

I agree, it's not typical but it was the same for both setups. If I'm right from your picture, it looks like they are about the same DD but "OFF" took more profit on the run up. It'll be interesting to see how they both dig themselves out of the DD now.

[SteveHopwood]

I was writing my nightly pm to Tommaso when this happened:

GBPJPYM5.png

It is a M5 chart, so the spike is not all that dramatic, but it made a difference. Prior to the spike, I had over 60 buy trades open. These were not a problem given my tiny lot sizes.

Post spike, I was left with just (hehe, just) 30 and single-sided complex offsetting had reduced the number of trades considerably.

Ok, so the profit was only a few bucks but it was profit and it reduced my exposure to the market considerably.

Never lose sight of this folks: lots and lots of small profits = mega-bucks.

Looks to me like single-sided complex offsetting is working just as intended.

Thanks to Bruster for coding it.

Bruster belongs to the Steve school of copy/paste/forget-to-edit

so

Thanks to the bloop-spotters who helped us deal with the bloops.

[rapple]

Hi Bruster

I have two RnR 1l running parallel (Charts are labeled SingleOffset=False, SingleOffset=True)
Trading (UCHF, GU, EU, UJ, UCAD, AU, GJ)
DistanceBetweenTrades = 10
$10,000 (0.01lot) GP demo account.

I have attached the balance/equity curves.

Not too much difference right now...Will keep them running as see how they compare

Cheers Richard

[Swingtraderkk]

A long straight run will always leave this EA in DD, that's the nature of grid trading. The profits grow linearly and the losses build exponentially so you'll never have enough profits to close all your losses - you're always relying on a retrace. However, the whole point of this bot is that it copes with this issue better than standard grid traders. The big wins that you were hoping for from the strong move have happened, it's just that they've been "offset" against the even bigger losses of your worst losing sell trades. In this way, this bot has kept down DD significantly and banked a few pips in the process.

The big issue you're facing is that you're account is over-traded - the current view on balance requirements is 0.01 lots per $2000 per pair and even that doesn't come with a comfort guarantee!! Today's price action wasn't particularly unusual and anybody trading this bot needs to do so with a full understanding of what it's capable of.

I understand the nature of grid trading, all my previous attempts at making them work failed! I can make a grid work for trending markets, or ranging markets, but never both, and the wrong market invariably dug me irreparably into terminal drawdown. That is why I was intrigued with the novel offsetting variants, (well done btw) but I still think the profitable trades are closing too soon when there are multiple losing open trades on the opposite side. Yes I understand your point re every closure offsets an even greater DD, but when you use more than one winning trade to close the loser on the other side do you not lose the pyramiding effect of the winning trades?

Perhaps the timing of closure of winning trades could be looked at? i.e. No closures until a significant retrace occurs? i.e. use something like % retrace of last move, zig/zag turning to trigger cashing in the profits?

And yes I was overtrading, had too low grid size, did not put in a 20% stop, and did not conclude anything from my quick look - I've limited vps capacity - other than I messed it up, and that I was underwhelmed with the pips won despite my mistakes - it just looked too similar to other failed grid systems.

[The_Snowman]

Wow, got back to starting Balance for a few minutes at least. Have changed the pips between trades to approximately 10% of ADR as shown in the comments; see how that goes once the "k" and "l" trades are all closed.

2016-05-04_10-20-50.png