Welcome to Forex-TSD!, one of the largest Forex forums worldwide, where you will be able to find the most complete and reliable Forex information imaginable.
From the list below, select the forum that you want to visit and register to post, as many times you want. It’s absolutely free. Click here for registering on Forex-TSD.
Exclusive Forum
The Exclusive Forum is the only paid section. Once you subscribe, you will get free access to real cutting-edge Trading Systems (automated and not), Indicators, Signals, Articles, etc., that will help and guide you, in ways that you could only imagine, with your Forex trading.
Elite Section
Get access to private discussions, specialized support, indicators and trading systems reported every week.
Advanced Elite Section
For professional traders, trading system developers and any other member who may need to use and/or convert, the most cutting-edge exclusive indicators and trading systems for MT4 and MT5.
I am using long or short only positions with max 6 trades with 15 pips spacing for a t/p of 40, secure 19 pips, lots increased by 2, and a trailing s/l of 20 all on 1hr charts and everything else false. This seems to work best for me.
Since I am not completely sure that I understand it clearly in every details of it, would you mind posting an example with figures that would demonstrate your theory?
Here are some backtest results for year 2001:
buy winners 544, buy losers 25, sell winners 566, sell losers 25
total winners 1110 (95%), total losers 50 (5%)
longest run of successive winners 87, shortest run 2, average run 23.1
The first graph shows standard fibonacci lot sizing for orders, every trade starts with the same conditions.
The second graph shows the same trades, but with an inverse progressive lot size after a loser trade (start with factor 7, go down after each winner until factor 1 is reached again).
The third graph show the same trades, but with a progressive lot sizing, meaning that after a winner, the factor increases from 1 until finally 5, a loser restarts the progression.
As you can see the differences are interesting. Basically I am looking for a way of determining the best lot sizing method that exploits the statistical regularities of winners vs. losers.
Have been testing "target equity to close" and my conclusion is to start off with value at 50% starting equity say starting equity=1000 then target equity should be 1500, then change to 2000, then to 2500 in 500 increments and so on as trend continues.
Here are some backtest results for year 2001:
buy winners 544, buy losers 25, sell winners 566, sell losers 25
total winners 1110 (95%), total losers 50 (5%)
longest run of successive winners 87, shortest run 2, average run 23.1
The first graph shows standard fibonacci lot sizing for orders, every trade starts with the same conditions.
The second graph shows the same trades, but with an inverse progressive lot size after a loser trade (start with factor 7, go down after each winner until factor 1 is reached again).
The third graph show the same trades, but with a progressive lot sizing, meaning that after a winner, the factor increases from 1 until finally 5, a loser restarts the progression.
As you can see the differences are interesting. Basically I am looking for a way of determining the best lot sizing method that exploits the statistical regularities of winners vs. losers.
When will you all realize MT4 backtester DOES NOT WORK. Publishing your backtests is about as uselss as using a fortune cookie to predict market movement.
When will you all realize MT4 backtester DOES NOT WORK. Publishing your backtests is about as uselss as using a fortune cookie to predict market movement.
-secXces
so? what do you suggest, blindly buy more computer to run forward test? i roughly check over TSD forum, found about 1400 version of EAs around. Say, you run 20EAs on 20 platform with 1 settings on 1 computer, you'll need about 700 unit of computer just to figure out the default setting is work or not for the 1st few months. stop posting negative!
Here are some backtest results for year 2001:
buy winners 544, buy losers 25, sell winners 566, sell losers 25
total winners 1110 (95%), total losers 50 (5%)
longest run of successive winners 87, shortest run 2, average run 23.1
The first graph shows standard fibonacci lot sizing for orders, every trade starts with the same conditions.
The second graph shows the same trades, but with an inverse progressive lot size after a loser trade (start with factor 7, go down after each winner until factor 1 is reached again).
The third graph show the same trades, but with a progressive lot sizing, meaning that after a winner, the factor increases from 1 until finally 5, a loser restarts the progression.
As you can see the differences are interesting. Basically I am looking for a way of determining the best lot sizing method that exploits the statistical regularities of winners vs. losers.
Alassio,
Being Bipolar Edition under discussion here, during trading occasionally both sell and buy orders exist at the same (period) of time. How does your version handle this situation? Does the lots sequence of the "losing" side remain the original one (while these orders are losing position)?
Being Bipolar Edition under discussion here, during trading occasionally both sell and buy orders exist at the same (period) of time. How does your version handle this situation? Does the lots sequence of the "losing" side remain the original one (while these orders are losing position)?
Regards,
Chrisstoff
the whole concept behind bipoler is to have it trade both directions at any given time. all other martingale style ea's place orders in one direction untill max trades are met. Then waits for the last trade to get hit. Bipoler trades the opposite direction while waiting for the other orders to close out.
positions and management are the same regardless of open orders.
and as for the guy pissin on back testing.......back test are mearly to give a person an "idea" of how an ea will run, to see that the functions with in the ea are working, and is a valuable aid in the developement.
But notice that I have posted more forward test than back test and all are very good results on a weekly basis.
Update on live account: account is open and awaiting funding. Soon as my check comes.
first deposit 3500 and I got another 2500 going in shortly after, as the last month trading has been very good. I only make withdrawls on a monthly basis.
the whole concept behind bipoler is to have it trade both directions at any given time. all other martingale style ea's place orders in one direction untill max trades are met. Then waits for the last trade to get hit. Bipoler trades the opposite direction while waiting for the other orders to close out.
positions and management are the same regardless of open orders.
and as for the guy pissin on back testing.......back test are mearly to give a person an "idea" of how an ea will run, to see that the functions with in the ea are working, and is a valuable aid in the developement.
But notice that I have posted more forward test than back test and all are very good results on a weekly basis.
Update on live account: account is open and awaiting funding. Soon as my check comes.
first deposit 3500 and I got another 2500 going in shortly after, as the last month trading has been very good. I only make withdrawls on a monthly basis.
Dave
I haven't had to much luck trading with this EA. What version and settings are working for you? I would like to forward test this EA again.
Thanks
Linear Mode
