Bob's Biggest Balls Ever

[fmuir]

Hello,

In the introducation of the EA, in post #1, it is stated with regards to 10.3 that:

...have included Slope so that we do not have to fight an adverse trend while scalping.
Disable it be setting the time frame to zero. ...

The extern variables in the EA, that affect whether Slope is used, with Scalping or Trending, and their default values are:

Scalping 10.3
------------------------
ScalpSlopeTF = 240; // Zero value to disable
ScalpBuyLevel = 0.0;
ScalpSellLevel = 0.0;


Trending 10.2a
-------------------------
TrendSlopeTF = 1440; // Zero value to disable
TrendBuyLevel = 0.4;
TrendSellLevel = -0.4;

Within LookingForTradingOpportunities, Rule 4 states "If used, Slope must be in the buy/sell area," for both scalping and trending. However, the if statements that implement Rule 4 checks to see if the TF == 0 or whether the SlopeValue is in the appropriate buy/sell area. Should not the if statements check whether the TF != 0 and that the SlopeValue is in the appropriate buy/sell area, if you want that condition to be true, and the if statement works properly as a filter? Right now, if you had set the SlopeTF to zero, that first condition would equate to true and the second condition would be ignored, the if statement would be true and will work as a filter. But, who has heard of a zero (0) TF?

I'll make the changes to my copy of BBBE and see if there might be an improvement, however I haven't yet figured out a way to fool Rule 3. Might just try to disable it with // at the begining of the line.

Have validated Scalping Rule 1 (26 scalp trades for 26 symbols, one scalp per symbol) and Rule2 (buy or sell determined by relation of DO to DP).

Haven't validated any Trending Rules.

Have questioned the implementation of Rule 4 for both Scalping and Trending.

Hopefully this makes sense. I might of made a mistake with my logic.

Regards,
-Frank

[SteveHopwood]

Hello,

In the introducation of the EA, in post #1, it is stated with regards to 10.3 that:

...have included Slope so that we do not have to fight an adverse trend while scalping.
Disable it be setting the time frame to zero. ...

The extern variables in the EA, that affect whether Slope is used, with Scalping or Trending, and their default values are:

Scalping 10.3
------------------------
ScalpSlopeTF = 240; // Zero value to disable
ScalpBuyLevel = 0.0;
ScalpSellLevel = 0.0;


Trending 10.2a
-------------------------
TrendSlopeTF = 1440; // Zero value to disable
TrendBuyLevel = 0.4;
TrendSellLevel = -0.4;

Within LookingForTradingOpportunities, Rule 4 states "If used, Slope must be in the buy/sell area," for both scalping and trending. However, the if statements that implement Rule 4 checks to see if the TF == 0 or whether the SlopeValue is in the appropriate buy/sell area. Should not the if statements check whether the TF != 0 and that the SlopeValue is in the appropriate buy/sell area, if you want that condition to be true, and the if statement works properly as a filter? Right now, if you had set the SlopeTF to zero, that first condition would equate to true and the second condition would be ignored, the if statement would be true and will work as a filter. But, who has heard of a zero (0) TF?

This is Lifesys' logic and it is hard to get your head around at first. Once you do, you realise how neat it is.

It is saying: this filter passes the test if Slope is turned off because the timeframe = zero, so it is not being used. OR, if the timeframe != zero, then the filter is being used and passes the test if SlopeValue is in the appropriate buy/sell area.

Remember I gave a slightly tetchy response to one of your pm's Frank? I had just spent the entire weekend getting my head around this stuff and you wanted me to worry about some missing 'P' or something? Think about this for a while and you will begin to understand why I was not in the best of all possible moods at the time.

I am not saying that Lifesys's solution is the only one on offer. It was the one on offer at the time and it works well; it just takes a bit of grasping.

I leave it to those who care to argue whether:

Code: Select all

if (!SomeCondition || SomeOtherCondition)

is better or worse than

Code: Select all

if (SomeCondition && SomeOtherCondition)

I don't care. I have adopted the solution I adopted because I was working with a master coder at the time and he thought he was handing me stuff on a plate. He wasn't, and it took me an entire damn weekend to work out what he meant.

[fmuir]

@ SteveHopwood,

Thanks for the immediate response!

I can appreciate the size and complexity of this EA. I can also appreciate that getting one's head around someone else's code, no matter how good it might be, can be a real headache producer.

My suggestion to make a code change to the if statements that implement Rule 4 seems to be a real bust. With Rule 3 disabled, I get 13 scalping orders opened with or without the changes. With Rule 3 enabled, I don't get any scalping orders opened with or without the changes. The reasons are obvious.

Have a simple question. Should 'Bid' be used in if statements that apply to Long trades. Wouldn't 'Ask' be more appropriate? 'Ask' and 'Bid' are separated by 'Spread.' That might affect Rule 3.

I'll continue going through the code in LookingForTradingOpportunities.

Regards,
-Frank

[fmuir]

@SteveHopwood,

Would you please take a look at the following code snippet. There are four similar blocks in LookForTradingOpportunities.

The snippet follows:

Code: Select all

     /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
     //Start of long scalp trade block
     if (ScalpTrading)
         if (!IsScalpTradeOpen(symbol))//1
            if (symbolValues[cc][iDO] > symbolValues[cc][iDP])//2
   //            if (iOpen(symbol, PERIOD_M15, 1) < symbolValues[cc][iDO] )//3
   //               if (bid > symbolValues[cc][iDO] )//3
                     if (ScalpSlopeTF == 0 || ScalpSlopeVal[cc] >= ScalpBuyLevel)//4
                        if (IsTradingAllowed(symbol, scalptrade) )//5
                           if (UseZeljko && BalancedPair(symbol, OP_BUY) )//5
                //            if (!UseFilter_ADX || CheckADX(symbol, buy))//6
                                 if (TradeLong)//5
                //                  if (!UseFilter_Doji || symbolValues[cc][iDoji] != down)//7
                                    /////////////////
                                    {
                                       TradeScalpLong(symbol);
                                       return;
                                    }
                                    /////////////////
               
      //End of long scalp trade block
      /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

[/size]
While this snippet looks neat, as you had said, there are inherent problems with it. Each if statment must evaluate to true to get to the next lower if statement. If they evaluate to false, then the potenial trade will fall out of the side and never be placed.

I have experienced a problem with the variable UseZeljko. Trades will be placed if it is set to true (had 3 scalp trades opened). No trades were placed when it is set to false. You would think that if you don't want to use the filter, then it wouldn't have any effect on a trade, but the trade would be placed, if the other conditions were favorable.

I had set UseFilter_ADX and UseFilter_Doji to false. I haven't gotten to the point of validating those if statements, that is why they're disabled. Intuitively you would think that if UseFilter_ADX or UseFilter_Doji were set to false, then the two filters are not used. But, the way that the if statements are constructed, the two filters are used irregardless of the setting of the two variables. Is this is what is wanted? If it is then the two variables should be removed from the if statements.

What do you think? And, please, don't let it affect your mood?! Life is too short, to allow yourself to be negatively affected by something that you love doing!

Regards,
-Frank

[McNish]

@ Frank : Thanks for the explanation, I see the point. Real nice work for dissecting the code piece by piece. Now I know why my EA with my set files was not taking trades as you described in your last couple posts. Time for me to step a level higher and grease my hands if I want this monster up and running my way.

Regards,

[phaholj]

Hello everyone

Which file is updated?
Because i only see the one on page 1 and there are updates being made along.
Can you put the version such that we all know which one is the latest.

[ovisun]

Hello everyone

Which file is updated?
Because i only see the one on page 1 and there are updates being made along.
Can you put the version such that we all know which one is the latest.

Always the last version is in post 1. Just open the file with metaeditor and you'll see that is the v1j.

Regards.

[phaholj]

Hello everyone

Which file is updated?
Because i only see the one on page 1 and there are updates being made along.
Can you put the version such that we all know which one is the latest.

Always the last version is in post 1. Just open the file with metaeditor and you'll see that is the v1j.

Regards.

Thanks

Will do that.

[phaholj]

I think it is best if there is a version number as a file as well.

[ovisun]

I think it is best if there is a version number as a file as well.

Stevehopwood doesn't like to add and him being the owner of the site, what can you do?

Aside from this I want to say that I like very much this EA with option for trend trades only. I had and have some very nice trades. Of course, it was also a SL along the way, but still I'm in green and going up.

Many pips to all