Instead of "Building up" positions with martingale/anti-martingale style, how about just closing each trade on it's own applying any EA directional method (with fixed target spacing) but increasing the next trade's size progressively after a losing trade and reducing the size after a winning trade...

EA trade ************** hedge trade
0.01, lose ************** 0.01, win
0.02, lose ************** 0.01, win
0.03, lose ************** 0.01, win
0.04, win ************** 0.01, lose
0.03, lose ************** 0.01, win
0.04, lose ************** 0.01, win
0.05, win ************** 0.01, lose
0.04, win ************** 0.01, lose

If the EA has 4 losses in a row, throw it away.
Then the system will at least breakeven when it has 2 winners in a row...
In this example, lose = 0.13, win = 0.13, it breakeven with only 3 winning trades & 5 losing trades. The hedge side with the exact opposite profit target spacing gives the overall system some extra pips.

Please share your thoughts on how to improve this or any other modified progressive/martingale system that does not accumulate positions.

The Fibonacci gambling system (eg Roulette, Baccarat) explained and tested
The d'Alembert gambling system (eg Roulette, Baccarat) explained and tested
How to Use the Oscar?s Grind Betting System in Roulette | eHow.com

Can anyone write a lot size/management module (with optional hedging) based on these progressions and incorporate into a basic directional EA e.g.MACD or any other systems that does not accumulate positions? Backtest and compare results before and after applying progression betting methods.

This idea is to avoid accumulating position in a fixed direction which is bad if the fx pair is trending without any retracement.
Direction will depend on independent bets/signals of EA...