Zypip wrote:I have tested Shelley today again with the following setup and results:

- Original Shelly : +500 pips ish
- Shelley with TMATRUETF 60M : +250pips ish
- Shelley with slope conf TF 60M : +100pips ish

If I could be allowed one wish it would be to have the slopeconf TF trigger at 0.4/-0.4 instead of the current 0.8/-0.8 (actually user definable would be fantastic for fine tuning). From my preliminary analysis it would increase the number of trades without too much impairing on the retracement filtering.
Still using v1r with Gary's setfile with jsl disabled.
Will keep my comparison settings running to see which one will fail first and if one can survive future significant retracements. I may add another Empty4 session using SCTF and TMATRUETF set at 30M.

-

SteveHopwood wrote:How do you do it? You are able to put your finger on the most inefficient of code and instantly spot the bloop.

FYI, my limited understanding is that mql4 evaluates all conditionals in an if (a && b && c) even if a fails. Placing these conditionals separately is my own way of trying to cut down on 'overhead'. Limited, I know, but that is me.

if (Acondition > Avalue
      && !Bcondition
      && (Ccondition > 0 || Dcondition < 0)

if (Acondition > Avalue)
{
   if (!Bcondition)
   {
      if (Ccondition > 0 || Dcondition < 0)
      {
       ...
      }
   }
}

garyfritz wrote:

SteveHopwood wrote:How do you do it? You are able to put your finger on the most inefficient of code and instantly spot the bloop.

I said, "The JSL isn't being updated properly. That's JslPips." So I searched for "JslPips =" and there were only a few choices. Elementary, my dear Watson!

FYI, my limited understanding is that mql4 evaluates all conditionals in an if (a && b && c) even if a fails. Placing these conditionals separately is my own way of trying to cut down on 'overhead'. Limited, I know, but that is me.

That is indeed the way MQL4 works.

However my time and brain cells, and those of the readers of my code, are vastly more valuable than saving a microsecond or three when the code executes. For simple tests like this example, the inefficient MQL4 code is literally just a couple of extra machine instructions. (Assuming they do actually compile it, otherwise it's a few more.) It's an insignificant savings, and it's really not worth bothering with. It will not make ANY noticeable difference in the execution time -- even if you analyzed with a code profiler -- yet for this non-benefit you have IMHO sacrificed the readability of your code, and that's always a grave error. Clearly readable and understandable code will pay back FAR more benefits than saving a nanosecond here or there.

Unless there is a very good reason -- like one of the conditions being tested is actually a function call that is expensive or makes an undesirable change -- then I write the code the way I consider clearest for HUMANS to understand. And I find "if (A && B && C)," all in one place visually with the logic spelled out explicitly, much clearer than spreading A, B, and C across extra lines of if's and {}'s, with implied but invisible "and" behavior &etc. If I want to separate them visually I might do something like

Code: Select all

if (Acondition > Avalue
      && !Bcondition
      && (Ccondition > 0 || Dcondition < 0)

...which, to me, is much clearer than

Code: Select all

if (Acondition > Avalue)
{
   if (!Bcondition)
   {
      if (Ccondition > 0 || Dcondition < 0)
      {
       ...
      }
   }
}

It's in one compact unit instead of being scattered across many lines of code, and I find that easier to see and "grok."

Always do what's best and easiest for you and other readers of your code. You're a much more precious and limited resource than a few CPU instructions.

garyfritz wrote:Glad you didn't mind being lectured at and preached to. This is one of my soap-box issues...

maudur wrote:

maudur wrote:

fxozgirl wrote:...
5. Obviously the question of drawdown is an age old forex conundrum and everyone has a different risk profile. I think it's highly unlikely that any strategy/system/EA will ever be able to perform without drawdown...we each need to manage this as best we can for our own personal risk profile, by ensuring our lot sizes are proportionate to our balance and that we stick to trading by the rules (whichever they may be) and that we trade on demo until we are absolutely certain & confident in the system.

Cheers

Shelley


ps. sorry for my ramblings

Shelley,

I read all your post in this thread and understand that you do not select any SL, is that correct?

In case such that the drawdown grow to a certain level that you consider, then you will close all orders assuming the loss or how you do it?

Thank you very much.

Shelley,

Please answer my questions.

Thank you.

fxozgirl wrote:...
Apologies Maudur, ...
To answer your question:

No, I do not use SL!
I trade small enough sizes that even if there is a massive move against me in the market I will not even come close to blowing my account. This was something I learnt some time ago from Bob and in doing so I can still grow my account anywhere from 5 - 10% per month. I regularly have trades open overnight and sleep quite comfortably.

...