Old and defunct Holy Graily Bob

[trendinator]

Probably needs a new set of yellow wave status thingies. I will mull this over and do some recoding later.

yes perhaps split wavestatus into bluewavesell, bluewavebuy, yellowwavesell, yellowwavebuy ?

then close on wavestatus == bluewavebuy || yellowwavebuy

and you can have the open on bluewavebuy only too

another thing...
sometimes the following situation occurs.
there are some pendings open. then the price will retrace away from the pendings. then a new signal is given in the same direction but it isnt taken because the pendings are still open. so there are a lot of missed pips because the pendings are now miles away but 'still valid'.

perhaps this would work - delete pendings on a new signal (in the same direction) and then open new pendings at a level correct for the new signal (but still keep old open trades open until opposite arrow or wave). just a thought

[SteveHopwood]

It might be simple after all.

We change line 3914 from:
if (WaveStatus == Wavesell)

to

if (WaveStatus == TmaYellowWave)

[trendinator]

It might be simple after all.

We change line 3914 from:
if (WaveStatus == Wavesell)

to

if (WaveStatus == TmaYellowWave)

still need to know if its above or below the price so that the closeonoppositeTMA works properly

[SteveHopwood]

It might be simple after all.

We change line 3914 from:
if (WaveStatus == Wavesell)

to

if (WaveStatus == TmaYellowWave)

still need to know if its above or below the price so that the closeonoppositeTMA works properly

I am not going to be dogmatic about this because I am not sure. What I think is that because the yellow wavy's indicate the start of a range period and the blue ones the end of a range, then it doesn't matter where the market is in relation to the yellow. Trades that were triggered by the blue need changing.

I noted your point about the pendings by the way, and will look into it this afternoon. Sounds like an excellent idea.

[SteveHopwood]

V 2x is in post 1, including fixes for points raised earlier by trendinator. Bear in mind that I am not certain that these fixes are watertight yet.

I have also included code to delete existing pendings unaccompanied by a market trade, when HGB finds a new signal. He calls void ShouldPendingsBeDeleted(string comment) when this happens - how this works will be obvious to the coders.

[acostafulano]

Steve, is the multiple entries per candle issue being addressed or looked into??

I'm not sure if I'm the only one having this issue, though I know most people here are trading HGB differently from how I am (myself using instant market entries only, and no multiple pendings).

I was thinking of a workaround for this, maybe call the HGI Indicator every 5 or 10 minutes instead of every minute.... but this is obviously not the ideal solution.

Please let me know if I shall do this or if there's a fix in the works.

thx

[SteveHopwood]

Steve, is the multiple entries per candle issue being addressed or looked into??

I'm not sure if I'm the only one having this issue, though I know most people here are trading HGB differently from how I am (myself using instant market entries only, and no multiple pendings).

I was thinking of a workaround for this, maybe call the HGI Indicator every 5 or 10 minutes instead of every minute.... but this is obviously not the ideal solution.

Please let me know if I shall do this or if there's a fix in the works.

thx

To tell the truth, I had forgotten about it. I will look into it.

[SteveHopwood]

I just had a quick peek. All the code does is look to see if a trade has opened and closed during the same candle (bool HaveTradesAlreadyClosedThisCandle()). That is not effective enough, so I will think through the solution and post it later.

[acostafulano]

Great. thanks!

[SteveHopwood]

V 2y is in post 1, with an attempted fix for the more than one trade per candle thingy. As well as the checking function itself being faulty, there were calls to it missed out altogether.