Rinse 'n Repeat

[SteveHopwood]

Guess what? It just happened again, albeit that there were not all that many buys opened.

Just trade the dam bot as originally intended folks. It really is quite good at what it does so long as your account is sufficiently capitalised.

[dydynamic]

Guys, dydynamic is soon to hit you with some incomprehensible stuff that he claims will reduce drawdown. He does so at my invitation because I have not the foggiest idea what he is talking about and it is the only way to stop him badgering me via pm. Please take him seriously and try to translate what he is saying into something and idiot like me can understand.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What I do not understand is peoples' reluctance to grasp that RnR makes a lot of money so long as you stick to the 0.01 lots per $10,000 of balance rule, trading GJ. My live account made just over $100 today. Look at this chart from today:



See those two vertical yellow lines? See the sharp spikes upwards? Remember this is an M5 chart, so those spikes would not even register on the M60.

What they did was clear out a whole load of accumulated buys. You cannot see them accumulating before the first yellow line; trust me - they accumulated. You can imagine how they accumulated before the second one.

Fact is, the spikes cleared them all out. This happens over and over and over again on GJ.

Ignore the results for today display - that is my indi and it does not show the results that made the dosh over the previous 24 hours. The loss will have been cause by rollover.

I have lost money trading RnR. I lost it when I invoked 'protective hedging'. Oh boy, but what a disaster that was. No sooner than the bot took a 'protective hedge' than the market instantly moved against it and a new hgi signal closed it at a mahoosive loss.

Treat 'protective hedging' with the sort of caution you would apply to nuclear waste. Try it on demo for six months until you know how to make it work for you, and the damage it can do when you fail to do so.

Treat whatever is coming from dydynamic with the same caution.

We have a proud history here at SHF, of fixing EA's until they finally break. I am not joining in this game here. I have disabled 'protective hedging' and instead opted for intelligent lot sizing - i.e. 0.01 lots for a minimum of $5,000 balance (preferably 10,000) and only trading GJ.

Up to you guys whether you take any further notice of me and my live trading. I shall not be involving myself in attempts to improve this ea, and will need hard evidence before I will alter the code.

Hello everyone,
I have been studying keenly how R n R plunges into the market fearlessly like a ninja and does all the slicing things with offsetting and the only issue it has is drawdown as a result of accumulated trades on the opposite side, if the market is trending up,it offsets the buy side and accumulates the sell side for slaughtering later but before the later swings by, the draw down would have done some serious irreparable damage, I noticed that "SIMPLE OFFSETTING", is the best method of closing trades with R n R.
R n R can flow flawlessly with the market with simple offsetting method, it is amazingly flexible as well.
My humble suggestion is let R n R open trades in ratios of 3:1, 2:1 and 1:1 before offsetting with the simple offsetting method only...
The minimum open trades that can be opened for R n R to commence offsetting is 4 trades, now what I am suggesting in my humble opinion is that an additional 3 trades should be opened before offsetting..
initial number of buy trades opened: (1,2,3,4); additional 3 buy trades will make it 7 like this: (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)...
If there is a retrace at the 7th trade, 1st and 7th buy trades are closed by simple offset method and we have 5 buy trades left; R n R must open additional 2 buy trades before any offseting can commence....
Remaining buy trades: (2,3,4,5,6); new 2 buy trades will make it 7 buy trades: (1,2,3,4,5,6,7)....
If there is a retrace from the 7th trade, 1st and 7th buy trades are closed by simple offsetting and 5 buy trades are left:(2,3,4,5,6); R n R must open 1 buy trade before offsetting can commence to make it 6 buy trades: (1,2,3,4,5,6); if there is a retrace, 1st and 6th buy trades are closed and we are back to 4 buy trades remaining, and we repeat the cycle all over again.....
Obviously, if there is no retrace at any stage of the cycle, R n R will open an additional single buy trade until there is a retrace and it continues from where it stopped in the cycle.....
If price reverses to the sell side at any stage of the buy cycle and the sell side has more than 4 initial trades, then 3 additonal trades will be opened by R n R before offsetting can start......
If the 3 additional trades are opened successfully and there is a retrace and an offset of trades before price reverses to the buy side again, the buy cycle will reset and check if there are at least 4 buy trades and start the cycle all over again but if the 3 additional sell trades were not opened or there was no retrace nor offset, and price reverses back to the buy side again, then the buy cycle will continue from where it stopped...
With this method, R n R will be balancing both the buy and sell side with little or no manual intervention as the additional trades required before a retrace and offset acts as a sort of delay mechanism to prevent R n R from going frenzy in a long trending day....
Please I need any one that can elaborate more on this and make any contribution that will help Master Steve understand what I am trying to say......

EDIT: please note that the additional 3,2,1, trades that must be opened before offsetting, can be set as buystops/sellstops above or below the highest buy trade or lowest sell trades after previous offsetting,buy and sell trades opened in the middle do not count in the cycle of trades needed before offseting,only those opened at the ends will be considered; R n R should only offset at the ends and definitely not in the middle in other not to unbalance the hedged trades......

[TraderJoeForex]

Makes sense in that the rate at which an imbalance grows between the number of buy and sell trades during a move would be slowed which should definitely be helpful.

I was also thinking whether there is any way to limit this imbalance as an alternative to hedging.

Look forwards to further thoughts...

[Heraclees]

Guess what? It just happened again, albeit that there were not all that many buys opened.

Just trade the dam bot as originally intended folks. It really is quite good at what it does so long as your account is sufficiently capitalised.

and sometime when "protective hedging"(PH) works at the right momentum but truly it's very risky and I monitored the trade very carefully with tighten SL on the PH order. I won't long last on this type. Probably will return on original stream which is very pleased to bank 30-50usd /day.

I intend on funding more the account to be comfortable on Margin %. ( 10,000usd as Steve advise seems to be very good for this type of trading).

Another think : Would you let RnR continue its run through the "Brexit" period ? Personally I will shut down at the end of the week and let the storm pass before resuming... (don't have enough guts for that... )

[Gertje]

Regarding Brexit and guts, just simple math should let you see it's suïcide to let RnR run through the last week.
GlobalPrime already announced, and others will follow, that the margin on GBP/ EUR/ CHF pairs will be decreased to 1:25. This will cut your ability to support unhedged orders by 8.
In other words, it's like having 8 times the amount of unhedged orders open than you are having now.......

Sure recipy for a MarginCall in my opinion.

[Gertje]

@ Dydynamic

I tested SimpleSingleSideOffsetting (SSSO) with 6 against 4 trades. It wasn't nearly as profitable as the original method with 4 trades. It also didn't put a lid on the amount of orders being opened on the opposite side.

Also I believe there is a flaw in your logic, in the way you describe the start of SSSO after a directional change. Take yesterday's GBPJPY for instance, after the trip down, closing sells with SSSO, and building buys like a maniac, it takes a retrace to at least the BE-point of the buys to close them out. It does so violantly, and clears the board. Only after price has reached the uppermost buy, SSSO will start on the buys. Mostly only after it has opened a few more already. In the meantime, there already have opened a bunch off sells in the proces.

Maybe I understood you wrong, if so I apologize for my rambling. :hi:


EDIT: what I have been doing on my life account, is switching from the standard CSSO-off to CSSO-on when a smallish retrace has happened. Most of the times RnR will close some opposite side trades, offsetting the biggest loser(s) with the winners. I then switch CSSO-off again. Maybe it's an idea to tell the EA to switch CSSO-on after x-amount of opposite side trades are opened to take avantige of the retrace that is too small to clear the board?

[dydynamic]

@ Gertje

I tested SimpleSingleSideOffsetting (SSSO) with 6 against 4 trades. It wasfitn't nearly as proable as the original method with 4 trades. It also didn't put a lid on the amount of orders being opened on the opposite side.

This method is not the same as the one you tried, this one gives R n R the ability to offset in a short term, medium term and long term mode. Remember the market moves in random motion but with intent, at a time R n R could offset after 5 buy trades, or even 12 buy trades or 9 buy trades or even 15 buy trades, this helps the profit to vary and sometimes far higher than the loss trades closed, and the excess profit will help fight draw down to a great extent until a good swing comes along and wipe out the draw down and you are left with a sizeable equity....

Also I believe there is a flaw in your logic, in the way you describe the start of SSSO after a directional change.

My dear, no logic is perfect and that is why Master Steve asked me to bring it up here so that we put heads together and make the logic as perfect as possible......
cheers...... :hi:

[TraderJoeForex]

@ Gertje

This method is not the same as the one you tried, this one gives R n R the ability to offset in a short term, medium term and long term mode. Remember the market moves in random motion but with intent, at a time R n R could offset after 5 buy trades, or even 12 buy trades or 9 buy trades or even 15 buy trades, this helps the profit to vary and sometimes far higher than the loss trades closed, and the excess profit will help fight draw down to a great extent until a good swing comes along and wipe out the draw down and you are left with a sizeable equity....

ok so what if number of trades to start offsetting was related to the imbalance between number of buy and sell trades?

For example if the difference in the number of buy and sell trades is 4 or less then we are happy with offsetting to start from 4 trades open.

Then for every + 1 in the difference we have + 1 for the offsetting. So if the difference is 8 we only offset from 8.

Just thinking out loud.. would this help?

[dydynamic]

ok so what if number of trades to start offsetting was related to the imbalance between number of buy and sell trades?

For example if the difference in the number of buy and sell trades is 4 or less then we are happy with offsetting to start from 4 trades open.

Then for every + 1 in the difference we have + 1 for the offsetting. So if the difference is 8 we only offset from 8.

Just thinking out loud.. would this help?

It's the imbalance in the number of buy and sell trades that this simple method is trying to reduce or contain, if we have a high imbalance of 8 trades, and add it to the cycle, the loop might be too large to close trades with a simple offset method unless that can be applied to hedging offset but that will cause further imbalances that would spiral out of control....
the 3,2,1,trades cycle ( please note that 3,2,1; is just for illustration purposes, you can set your cycle to 5,3,2; 6,4,2;or even 2,1,1; it depend on how you want to trade the market ) gives R n R a range to operate with, kind of like a fixed boundary but elastic with the addition of +1 trades to the cycle if a retrace is not forthcoming. simple offsetting deals with just 2 variables, 1 winning trade and 1 losing trade as a result of a retrace and if the offsetting can be done at the ends of the opened trades, the imbalances will sort itself out as the market swings back and forth but the other offsets deal with more than 2 variables at a time and that is why trades accumulate faster on the opposite side. One way you can manually intervene is when you discover you have some nice profits in a long trending market, you can close everything provided you gained something eg; you deposited 500usd and your balance is 800usd but your equity is 700usd, you do not have to wait for the draw down to be cleared if it is taking too long cos swap, spread and commission will accumulate, I will close and collect the 100usd gladly and restart R n R again....

[jal811]

Whatever contains DD also contains profitability of a breakout move, which RnR is great at.

Might as well liquidate the entire grid when there are equal numbers of buys and sells that have gotten 'stuck', and start again.