SteveHopwood wrote: I know how you feel. Ok, so not absolutely certain that the trading decision making code is watertight yet, but it is not far off. I feel we are on to something good here.

SteveHopwood wrote:We are back in business.

V 1m is in post 1, with re-worked trade decision code.

fxozgirl wrote:

SteveHopwood wrote:We are back in business.

V 1m is in post 1, with re-worked trade decision code.

thanks Steve

wolfeman wrote:Oh boy, my first trade with the new toy. I do have a few concerns...

OOTB other than rentry is allowed.

It seems that BASA was too excited and broke some rules. The 240 and 60 crossed the candle prior, so that part was ok. But candle shift requirements were not met. The highest rsi was at 87 in the previous 3 candles.
It looks to me like the ea opened based on an 80 cross of the RSI-TMA even though it's set to 90- or the 240/60 cross caused it to fire. Price never came close to the 60MA.

Trade broke through support nicely, moved to BE spot on. Took a second trade at the right time, but forgot the stop loss.

The properties settings for RSI are at 0 for the TF. I'm assuming that it should default to current chart TF, which is 4Hr of course.

wolfeman wrote:Oh boy, my first trade with the new toy. I do have a few concerns...

OOTB other than rentry is allowed.

It seems that BASA was too excited and broke some rules. The 240 and 60 crossed the candle prior, so that part was ok. But candle shift requirements were not met. The highest rsi was at 87 in the previous 3 candles.
It looks to me like the ea opened based on an 80 cross of the RSI-TMA even though it's set to 90- or the 240/60 cross caused it to fire. Price never came close to the 60MA.

Trade broke through support nicely, moved to BE spot on. Took a second trade at the right time, but forgot the stop loss.

The properties settings for RSI are at 0 for the TF. I'm assuming that it should default to current chart TF, which is 4Hr of course.

SteveHopwood wrote:Moving on from Wolfie's lack of understanding of what is going on here (and yes, Wolfie and I are good friends so he he not going to be uspset by this), what do we do about this situation?

eurgbp.gh4.png

So yes, the first trade was a cosher re-entry trade (shutup Wolfie, you got it wrong, ok?) but is there anyone in the world with a firing brain cell and more than 30 seconds of experience trading the train wreck that is Forex trading, that would have taken that stack trade manually? Seek psychiatric help if you answered, 'Yes'.

Question is, how do we avoid these scenarios when a thick EA is involved? Only intelligent replies please. I will delete idiotic replies.

fxozgirl wrote:One thing though, is it possible to incorporate MA stacking with a stack trade as well?

SteveHopwood wrote:

fxozgirl wrote:One thing though, is it possible to incorporate MA stacking with a stack trade as well?

Nothing gets through if ma stacking is enabled and the ma's do not stack up. If enabled, ma stacking impacts on every trading decision.

It makes no difference to the scenario we are looking at here - it would be something strange if the ma's were not stacking up by the time that stack trade was taken, It also defeated the maximum spread filter.

Maybe there are just times when shf and there is nothing we can do about it. All we can do is experiment and see.

//+------------------------------------------------------------------+
//| expert Detect MA Stacking            |
//+------------------------------------------------------------------+
bool detectMaStack(string symbol, int timeframe, int period, int period1, int mashift, int method, int applied, int type, int shift)
{
double confirmation[2];
    
    confirmation[0]  = (MathAbs(iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, shift) - iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, shift)));
    confirmation[1]  = (MathAbs(iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, shift+1) - iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, shift+1)));
     if (!confirmation[0] > confirmation[1])
      return(false);

    if (type == OP_BUY)
    {
        if (iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, shift) > iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, shift) && 
        iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, shift) > iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, 1) &&
         iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, shift) > iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, 1))
            return(true);
    }

    if (type == OP_SELL)
    {
        if (iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, shift) < iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, shift) && 
        iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, shift) < iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, 1) &&
        iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, shift) < iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, 1))
            return(true);
    }
 return(false);
}

//+------------------------------------------------------------------+
//| expert Detect mA widening
//+------------------------------------------------------------------+
bool detectMaWidening(string symbol, int timeframe, int period, int period1, int mashift, int method, int applied, int shift)
{
    
    double confirmation[2];
    
    confirmation[0]  = (MathAbs(iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, shift) - iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, shift)));
    confirmation[1]  = (MathAbs(iMA(symbol, timeframe, period, mashift, method, applied, shift+1) - iMA(symbol, timeframe, period1, mashift, method, applied, shift+1)));
       
        if (confirmation[0] > confirmation[1])
        {
            return(true);
        }
   
    return(false);
}

if (!detectMaWidening(Symbol(), PERIOD_H4, 21, 55, 0, MODE_EMA, PRICE_CLOSE,  0))// got to have ma's widening
       continue;