MrLong wrote:

slipshod wrote:Hi Andy, I was wondering if you could explain how these extra trades work a little more? For instance, just say I'd gone long on AUDUSD and it went into unacceptable DD triggering the virtual trades. Would those trades then be more longs from a lower level, or shorts? How would they differ in their entry logic from the normal 10.4 rules used by the "normal" EA? Sorry if its all been explained previously...

Hi slipshod,

I was looking more on a basket basis, over the last 5 weeks we have seen most of our baskets drawdown before going into profit, so the test I'm doing now is to have the normal EA run and take the normal trades, I have modified another version to wait until the basket of the first EA goes into drawdown, we could also look at specific pairs also, the list of pairs will be duplicated on the 2nd EA and at a given drawdown, say 5-6% enter the same trades - drawdown.

We will miss the trades that go straight into profit.

It may not work, but it's worth a try.

Andy

MrLong wrote:Hi Traders,

To backtest, you need to do the following.

string Pairs[] = { "EURUSD" }; <== enter the pair to backtest

//CreateSymbolList(); <== Highlight out, like //
//CreateADRList(); <== Highlight out, like //

extern bool useBoundryFilter =false; <== make sure it's set to false.

extern bool useOneDailyTrade = true;

Yes I did manage to back test the EA, but the strategy tester was not deleting previous stop orders, so the the back test could not be accurate.

Attached is the back test.

Andy
Attachments

slipshod wrote:

MrLong wrote:

slipshod wrote:Hi Andy, I was wondering if you could explain how these extra trades work a little more? For instance, just say I'd gone long on AUDUSD and it went into unacceptable DD triggering the virtual trades. Would those trades then be more longs from a lower level, or shorts? How would they differ in their entry logic from the normal 10.4 rules used by the "normal" EA? Sorry if its all been explained previously...

Hi slipshod,

I was looking more on a basket basis, over the last 5 weeks we have seen most of our baskets drawdown before going into profit, so the test I'm doing now is to have the normal EA run and take the normal trades, I have modified another version to wait until the basket of the first EA goes into drawdown, we could also look at specific pairs also, the list of pairs will be duplicated on the 2nd EA and at a given drawdown, say 5-6% enter the same trades - drawdown.

We will miss the trades that go straight into profit.

It may not work, but it's worth a try.

Andy

Ok so, if its adding to the same trades that are in loss, is this a form of recovery trading? Could it potentially add to the loss if there's no bounce back? I'd certainly like to see it in action & for sure it'd be great to have the option available.

MrLong wrote:

slipshod wrote:Hi Andy, I was wondering if you could explain how these extra trades work a little more? For instance, just say I'd gone long on AUDUSD and it went into unacceptable DD triggering the virtual trades. Would those trades then be more longs from a lower level, or shorts? How would they differ in their entry logic from the normal 10.4 rules used by the "normal" EA? Sorry if its all been explained previously...

Hi slipshod,

I was looking more on a basket basis, over the last 5 weeks we have seen most of our baskets drawdown before going into profit, so the test I'm doing now is to have the normal EA run and take the normal trades, I have modified another version to wait until the basket of the first EA goes into drawdown, we could also look at specific pairs also, the list of pairs will be duplicated on the 2nd EA and at a given drawdown, say 5-6% enter the same trades - drawdown.

We will miss the trades that go straight into profit.

It may not work, but it's worth a try.

Andy

aagarcia wrote:

MrLong wrote:

slipshod wrote:

MrLong wrote:

slipshod wrote:Hi Andy, I was wondering if you could explain how these extra trades work a little more? For instance, just say I'd gone long on AUDUSD and it went into unacceptable DD triggering the virtual trades. Would those trades then be more longs from a lower level, or shorts? How would they differ in their entry logic from the normal 10.4 rules used by the "normal" EA? Sorry if its all been explained previously...

Hi slipshod,

I was looking more on a basket basis, over the last 5 weeks we have seen most of our baskets drawdown before going into profit, so the test I'm doing now is to have the normal EA run and take the normal trades, I have modified another version to wait until the basket of the first EA goes into drawdown, we could also look at specific pairs also, the list of pairs will be duplicated on the 2nd EA and at a given drawdown, say 5-6% enter the same trades - drawdown.

We will miss the trades that go straight into profit.

It may not work, but it's worth a try.

Andy

Ok so, if its adding to the same trades that are in loss, is this a form of recovery trading? Could it potentially add to the loss if there's no bounce back? I'd certainly like to see it in action & for sure it'd be great to have the option available.

No we are not adding any trades, we are taking the trades in memory and then
calculating when they are drawn down, so if 10.4 rules say take Audusd we don't really
take it, we just log it and then calculate, had we taken this trade we would be down 6% we
enter for real.

Hi Andy, so how would you come up with the % DD that the pairs need to be in before they trigger REAL trades? How do you plan on arriving at a #?
Thanks,
Tony

slipshod wrote:TCO, as currently coded that may not work well, as there's no check on either RSI or AO to look for a movement contrary to the current price direction to indicate that it wants to bounce. You could end up just entering in the face of a plunge that doesn't stop, whereas pending orders on a pivot require the price to show evidence that it may want to turn and resume the original trend. Of course that turn could end the moment you enter and resume a counter-trend plunge or even reversal, but that's life

One thing I do find odd though is the entry on pivots, when they can often act as price points where the market stops and reverses. I'd much rather see entries halfway between the pivots, on the basis that if its reached past the previous pivot line that far the chances are it'll continue on at least as far as the next one.

TallCoolOne wrote:

slipshod wrote:TCO, as currently coded that may not work well, as there's no check on either RSI or AO to look for a movement contrary to the current price direction to indicate that it wants to bounce. You could end up just entering in the face of a plunge that doesn't stop, whereas pending orders on a pivot require the price to show evidence that it may want to turn and resume the original trend. Of course that turn could end the moment you enter and resume a counter-trend plunge or even reversal, but that's life

One thing I do find odd though is the entry on pivots, when they can often act as price points where the market stops and reverses. I'd much rather see entries halfway between the pivots, on the basis that if its reached past the previous pivot line that far the chances are it'll continue on at least as far as the next one.

Hi SlipShod,

It just seems funny to me. We use AO/RSI and/or Stoch to determine if we have a good possible setup only to wait till prices goes higher to a point where price like to reverse. So now we have DD and we have to wait for price to go back up thru the S/R level that it already visited when or pending order got triggered and now go beyond that level to have have a trade start to win, when we could have opened the trade earlier and just take profit at the S/R level You could always open another trade at the S/R level. I just see us wasting a lot of price movement to confirm more price movement, when we could already be in the trade making pips. AO and RSI has shown that we should have a good setup....sooo... Just my 2 cents. Thanks!

And really that looks like what Andy is talking about...kinda....to avoid DD. He will use the first dummy order to see if it would have triggered the pending....wait for it to back down. then trigger a real order once the virtual DD is realized. I don't know....i see it both ways. I guess i could hack up the the EA and send Buystops and Sell Stops instead of Pendings and see what happens. Let me noodle on it. Maybe Andy just had the right idea.

slipshod wrote:Yes its a conundrum - do you enter at the price level where you think the market might begin to reverse (or in this case stop retracing and continue the main trend), or do you require the market to start that reversal to prove that the retrace is over before you enter?

The first option, which is how Sam Seiden's methods work btw, exposes you to the risk that it might not even pause for breath but just keep "retracing" directly to your stoploss. In cases like that, the 10.4-style pending order would not have been filled and you'd not have entered the trade.

The second, 10.4, option exposes you to the risk that you enter in a fake bounce, then the retracement continues again heading for your stoploss, but from a worse price point - and that's what we've seen with the instances of DD so far.

Both methods are open to risk, but I guess that's true of every trading method. The thing is, this EA was created to implement NB's 10.4 which means the argument isn't with how this EA enters, but how 10.4 itself works. Start messing with the entry logic too much and its no longer a 10.4 EA at all but something else.

I'd love to be able to BT this EA, in which case I could plug in different entry methods and see which tends to produce a better outcome, but sadly I've never been able to get it to trade in backtesting.