Multi 10:4 Trader EA

[MrLong]

I think the issue is that often the RSI will not reach the opposite threshold but will instead reverse back. If that happens, it looks like we are still placing pending orders, even if the RSI is moving against your trading direction. Manually, I would not place pending orders anymore when RSI returns to where it came from. i would remove pending orders and wait until RSI reaches the previous threshold again, and then place pending orders.

Hi Andy,

I think this is an important issue. What I understand from Bob's thread and what seem's logical, is that if you placed a pending order and the AO or RSI go out of the trigger areas, you cancel the pending order.

This will prevent you from entering trades that are still moving away from the trend.

Code: Select all

if you placed a pending order and the AO or RSI go out of the trigger areas, you cancel the pending order

I don't understand what you mean, can you explain, a long trade from start, then deleting of pending order.

Thanks
Andy

Hi Andy,

I'm currently on a vacation and therefore a bit short on resources. I will try to explain what I mean.

This is from Bob's 10.4 manual.

BUY TRADES BEST CASE SCENARIO.

1. When price is above the white 240 MA line on a 4H chart, you set your pending trades with the following signal(s). The signals can be used together or separately. You do not need each one to agree to set pending trades you can go with only one signal and the 240 MA line.

2. RSI 2 is flat-lined on the bottom

3. AO is below its 0 line

4. You will be crossing the WP back into the trend.

5. AO has turned to a green bar showing an UT has started.

SELL TRADES BEST CASE SCENARIO.

1. When price is below the white 240 MA line on a 4H chart, you set your pending trades with the following signal(s). The signals can be used together or separately. You do not need each one to agree to set pending trades you can go with only one signal and the 240 MA line.

2. RSI 2 is flat-lined on the top.

3. AO is above its 0 line

4. You will be crossing the WP back into the trend.

5. AO has turned to an orange bar showing a DT has started.

You can see that, as you said many times before, you only need the price position compared to the 240 MA line and one of the next 4 criteria to enter a pending order. So you don't neede all of them to line up.

When you have one of these set up's, you enter a pending order. For instance, the price is above the 240 MA and the RSI is below 2. ( flat-lined at the bottom) You now enter a pending buy order.

But what if the RSI comes above 2 before the pending buy order is filled? Do you keep the pending order, or do you cancel it? I would do the last.

I think that for a pending or to be valid you need the operators that triggered the pending order to be still active.[/quote]

Hi,

If we lay the STOP ORDER for a long trade, when the RSI is below 2 and price is above 240 ma and the RSI moves above 2.

That would tell me price is moving towards my pending orders.

Maybe I don't grasp it

Andy

[bubo]

I am glad we are discussing this, and yes the issue can be a bit complex. Some points:

(1) I don't think Nanningbob is using AO any longer. Maybe we should simply have an external input whether AO is used for setting pending orders or not.

(2) Initially, Nanningbob didn't care too much about pending orders accumulating and not getting filled. He simply kept them even if price moved away from them, and then later used them for scaling in when price finally turned around and kept trending in the direction predicted initially.

I think this can work well in manual trading, where you keep an eye on things and delete pending orders as you go when they no longer make sense. However with an EA, many pending orders will accumulate, and quite a few of them will cause DD because conditions have changed a lot since the pending orders were placed. I have observed several pending orders that were filled but I would not have placed these pending orders under current conditions (RSI had been all over the place but not at the top or bottom).

In addition to that, Nanningbob is not scaling in anymore under current conditions. He is happy with the first TP, while we have pending orders left all over the place.

In my opinion, this accumulation of pending orders is a convenient thing when you are trading manually and it saves you time to leave the pending order there in case you want to use it for scaling in later. But for an EA, it is easy to scale in automatically, and I would prefer seeing the process split into two components:

(a) Place pending orders according to what we use now, but don't keep them very long. If price does not go where you predict it will go, then remove it - particularly if the RSI has moved over to the other side but price has not budged in that direction. The exact mechanism of how to remove pending orders may have to be addressed.

(b) When a pending order has been triggered and is reaching its first TP, we should actively scale in with the correct lot size to keep the risk at the desired level, and move the SL up. This is in agreement with what Bob described in his manual. I would prefer an active component that scales in rather than using pending orders left over from earlier conditions (and missing out on scaling in when no earlier pending orders have been placed). Such an active scaling in wold also have the advantage that we could turn it on or off in the external input parameters, depending on the current market situation (at the moment Bob recommends not to scale in).

[glabbeek]

I am glad we are discussing this, and yes the issue can be a bit complex. Some points:

(1) I don't think Nanningbob is using AO any longer. Maybe we should simply have an external input whether AO is used for setting pending orders or not.

(2) Initially, Nanningbob didn't care too much about pending orders accumulating and not getting filled. He simply kept them even if price moved away from them, and then later used them for scaling in when price finally turned around and kept trending in the direction predicted initially.

I think this can work well in manual trading, where you keep an eye on things and delete pending orders as you go when they no longer make sense. However with an EA, many pending orders will accumulate, and quite a few of them will cause DD because conditions have changed a lot since the pending orders were placed. I have observed several pending orders that were filled but I would not have placed these pending orders under current conditions (RSI had been all over the place but not at the top or bottom).

In addition to that, Nanningbob is not scaling in anymore under current conditions. He is happy with the first TP, while we have pending orders left all over the place.

In my opinion, this accumulation of pending orders is a convenient thing when you are trading manually and it saves you time to leave the pending order there in case you want to use it for scaling in later. But for an EA, it is easy to scale in automatically, and I would prefer seeing the process split into two components:

(a) Place pending orders according to what we use now, but don't keep them very long. If price does not go where you predict it will go, then remove it - particularly if the RSI has moved over to the other side but price has not budged in that direction. The exact mechanism of how to remove pending orders may have to be addressed.

(b) When a pending order has been triggered and is reaching its first TP, we should actively scale in with the correct lot size to keep the risk at the desired level, and move the SL up. This is in agreement with what Bob described in his manual. I would prefer an active component that scales in rather than using pending orders left over from earlier conditions (and missing out on scaling in when no earlier pending orders have been placed). Such an active scaling in wold also have the advantage that we could turn it on or off in the external input parameters, depending on the current market situation (at the moment Bob recommends not to scale in).

Thanks Bubo,

What you point out at point "a" is exactly what I mean.

The scalling-in part you discuss in "b" could maybe be a next step, but that point is more about increasing profit and not about decreasing losses.

I hope all is clear.

[Sojourner]

Added: closeWinTrades = false;, Close win trades at set times, can turn on or off, times in the EA are GMT and time on your PC, so you will need to convert them.

Mr. Long i am confused as to this. The above says the times in the EA are GMT AND the time on my PC.

How do I do that? How can it be both?

Also, is 'time on your PC' defined as computer clock time or the broker time on the Empty4?

Thanks. This is my favorite EA yet. =)

[MrLong]

Added: closeWinTrades = false;, Close win trades at set times, can turn on or off, times in the EA are GMT and time on your PC, so you will need to convert them.

Mr. Long i am confused as to this. The above says the times in the EA are GMT AND the time on my PC.

How do I do that? How can it be both?

Thanks. This is my favorite EA yet. =)

Sorry for the confusion, is what I was saying was the times set in the EA, are GMT, so if you live in USA, times would need to be changed because it is local times in the settings.

[rosst]

So in the Trading hours line it would look something like this?
+17:00,-1.00,+1.01,-6.30,+6:31,-16.99
which means the ea would trade Asian, Europe & NY sessions closing the trades if they were winning at each session?
Thanks for including this!

[MrLong]

So in the Trading hours line it would look something like this?
+17:00,-1.00,+1.01,-6.30,+6:31,-16.99
which means the ea would trade Asian, Europe & NY sessions closing the trades if they were winning at each session?
Thanks for including this!

no, the envelope is only open for 1 minute, 17:00, -17:01

[Sojourner]

My PC clock (Windows), (NOT the broker market watch clock) is 5 hours (Central Time) behind GMT. I took the existing setting and just subtracted 5 hours from each of the entries on moth of those lines. I hope this is correct?

So in the Trading hours line it would look something like this?
+17:00,-1.00,+1.01,-6.30,+6:31,-16.99
which means the ea would trade Asian, Europe & NY sessions closing the trades if they were winning at each session?
Thanks for including this!

no, the envelope is only open for 1 minute, 17:00, -17:01

[roman101]

My PC clock (Windows), (NOT the broker market watch clock) is 5 hours (Central Time) behind GMT. I took the existing setting and just subtracted 5 hours from each of the entries on moth of those lines. I hope this is correct?

So in the Trading hours line it would look something like this?
+17:00,-1.00,+1.01,-6.30,+6:31,-16.99
which means the ea would trade Asian, Europe & NY sessions closing the trades if they were winning at each session?
Thanks for including this!

no, the envelope is only open for 1 minute, 17:00, -17:01

This GMT conversion business is always confusing to many traders. it would be nice to do it in PC time.
Andy, thank you for the update. Any luck with DD issues?

Cheers,
Roman

[slipshod]

My PC clock (Windows), (NOT the broker market watch clock) is 5 hours (Central Time) behind GMT. I took the existing setting and just subtracted 5 hours from each of the entries on moth of those lines. I hope this is correct?

So in the Trading hours line it would look something like this?
+17:00,-1.00,+1.01,-6.30,+6:31,-16.99
which means the ea would trade Asian, Europe & NY sessions closing the trades if they were winning at each session?
Thanks for including this!

no, the envelope is only open for 1 minute, 17:00, -17:01

This GMT conversion business is always confusing to many traders. it would be nice to do it in PC time.

Maybe this'd help:- http://www.stevehopwoodforex.com/phpBB3 ... f=15&t=225