Forum Replies Created
- Posts
I can give the answer to type 2 if you like. At least my definition of it.
Yes, please do.
The second type I would say is when price moves in the direction of the trend but much faster relative to it’s previous movement. Like when breaking through a “support’, dropping quickly down and then retracing back up.
Thanks for adding it
I made a post to the product improvement thread as not to clutter this one.As to your question about two types of reversion… just from looking at the posted chart I would say one type is slow and the other one is fast? Comparing time it took price to move away vs time it took it to come back?
The sum of “Long” and “Short” profit does not equal “Both” profit. Depending on Symbol and time interval, the difference varies between + and -.
Hi Saver0,
thanks for the invite. I joined your Beta. Very currious to see what you came up with.
I trade mostly gold (XAUUSD) so was hoping to see your system’s results for this asset. But looking over the dashboard I don’t see it. Is it only available in the paid subscription plan?Anyway, great job with this project. Will follow closely.
Vlan
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
There is a lot need to change before you send it for free. I think we should focus on the EA which is offering Gg
I agree. Current status is that we are still waiting/working on Currency strength indicator that could be called in the function call style GG described earlier.
If anybody has one and would like to contribute, please post it here or send me a PM so we can continue with this community EA.
Thanks
V.
This reply has been reported for inappropriate content.
I have the feeling that the Penguin EA went to sleep…
Maybe it only looks that way, and people are working on the CS indi.
I am, but nothing to share yet.
V.
Hi @gg53. Thanks for these ideas.
Ea Status: Still missing Functions/Modules: 1. MySentiment – User Parameter implementation
Will do.
2. Currency-Strength – Issue not yet concluded
I need to reread your discussion with simplex about this, I remember you had different views on how to calculate it. Personally, I’m for your approach. If not for anything else, then simply for the fact that you have been using it with this strategy and it has been working for you.
On EA’s StopLoss: ….while maintaining Logical SL at latest Peak or Trough
What about TP? TP is basically inverted SL. Can the same logic be used for “more intelligent” TP placement? Still using the TP_Factor but adjusting the position by placing it under/above previous troughs/peaks ?
V.
Hi kapybara,
Here is output from your script. I run it on 2 brokers where I had the same issue.
Thanks for reporting! According to your output, the error should NOT occur on your GP account, where
Stop level in points ( MODE_STOPLEVEL ) = 0.Hi simplex
Thanks for v1.4. I finally tested it, works fine on my side.
I checked the reported error, and looks like 0 value for STOPLEVEL doesn’t necessarily mean no restrictions:
A zero value of MODE_STOPLEVEL means either absence of any restrictions on the minimal distance for Stop Loss/Take Profit or the fact that a trade server utilizes some external mechanisms for dynamic level control, which cannot be translated in the client terminal.
So that’s bad news. There can be something running that we can not see and check.
So I opened a demo account at GP and backtested the EA and it worked correctly, Opening trades at 3 pips from actual price with StopLevel showing 0. So now I’m confused.
@kapybara are you still experiencing this problem?
V.
@VlanFx: Thanks for your faith in me! As you can easily see from the code I sent you recently, my coding style is quite different from yours. I would feel more confident basing my further work on the version I sent you for review, not on yours. But I’m afraid that might introduce a major break in our overall workflow. Please do not take this a sign of disrespect! I can give it a try based on your most recent version 1.3, but I’m not sure whether it will work out. s.
That’s no problem simplex. I’m away and wouldn’t want the group to wait.
V.
I’m away until next week, so would you please make and post the next EA version 1.4 with the news filter from @fuzzy?
Thanks.@fuzzy, thanks for contributing, good work.
V.
Hi guys,
sorry for the absence. We are finishing a project at work that is already overdue so I haven’t had time for anything else these days.
Currently Missing functions from the EA are:
– partial orders closing management function (this is keeping us from using simplex’s DynTP)
– news filter – @Emonts is/was working on this, but lately has not been replying to PMs. Hope everything is ok and he is just busy.
GG53 said, the main stopper now is the news filter. So if somebody would like to help out, I think @Emonts wouldn’t mind.
The latest version from Emonts is here and here are simplex’s suggestions.
Thanks in advance.
V.
That rule is there just to make the partial closing logic work: PartialClose is applied when setting SL to BE. SL can be set to BE only if SL is negative. This could not be done if PartialTP was bigger than TrailingStop.
Once we have new the partial orders management function, we won’t need this rule anymore.
V.
Hi @simplex
Yes, there are several ways to do this, but can not say I really like either of them:
– keeping track of partially closed orders in some kind of list as you suggested. Here I would suggest using out-of-ea storage place so the ea can continue to work even after ea/mt4/windows restart.
– using order comment to store order’s initial lots and then compare it to OrderLots() to see if they match. This would allow for only one partial close per order (do we need more?). Also, some borkers replace order comment fields so it may not work for everybody.
– instead of partial closing, we can do ‘partial opening’. Place two or more orders at the same time and direction with different lots and different TPs.
The 5 pips that I used as default value for partial TP was taken from @GG53 post here. I know he said “If our tests confirms”… So maybe he didn’t mean to use exactly those numbers, but rather he meant it as a suggestion for us to find what TP has very high probability to be reached and use that to cover part of a position.
I think now we should decide on the PartialTP logic and implement it. Then, together with your DynamicTP function and @Emonts news library the skeleton EA should be ready for trading logic.
V.
Hi Simplex,
I reply to your post here, as I think this one point is more of technical nature than trading logic.
“…In case you wanted a BE logic, but no partial close, you would have to call the partial close function anyway…”
MoveStopLossToBreakEven() is a separate function, so you can call it without calling PartialClose function.
But I understand your point, ‘moving sl to be’ and ‘partial closing’ are separate actions and one shouldn’t call the other one and they both should be called from OnTick(). That was my intention in the beginning also but then my coding ability hit reality :)
I couldn’t figure out an elegant solution for closing part of an order just once. As long as the order was in required profit, on the next tick, another part of the position was closed and so on until there was no position left. Another factor that complicates things when using OrderClose() to close just a part of the lots of the entire position, is the mt4 will close the actual position ticket(number) as whole, and create another position ticket(number) with the remaining lots. So the ticket number of the ‘same’ position changes.
Putting it together with the MoveSlToBe event ensured that each order is partial closed only once. So I made it one event. And since this kind of implementation didn’t interfere with requested trading logic, I decided to go this way.
If you have came across this problem before and/or have a nice solution, feel free to post it.
Regarding WIP, I added commission to be taken into account inside trailing function and when setting BE.
The last point from GG53 pre-conditions is the News filter. With this one I’m waiting on Emonts to send me the final code of the NewsInc library.V.
@Emonts, I think you can post it here. More people have more time to test it. When they ‘OK’ it, I will add it.
Here is version v.1.3 of our Penguin EA
Added changes were made based on @GG53 ideas in post here and here
Still missing:
– FFCal – avoid trading before/after news. Emonts and jaguar sent me some version of ffCal library, but I couldn’t get them to work. See here.– Limit orders – functions for placing LimitOrders is included in the EA, but after talking with GG they are not being called yet.
Known EA limitations
– for partial orders closing logic to work properly, TrailingStop parameter must be bigger than PartialTP parameter (take profit value at which part of the order is closed). We can discuss more about this in the coder’s chat thread.V.
Wish you merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a Happy New Year!! G.
Thank you @GG53. Happy holiday season to you too and to all the members.
V.
ContinueTrading=false;
The condition by itself is OK, because 99999 is not less than 120, so it will not set ContinueTrading=false; and will continue trading.
My problem was that the indicator returned those same values every time. But it was in backtesting, so I was thinking that was the reason. But now I tried to run the ea on live chart with news coming in and it still returns those values.
Will have to look into it some more.V.
This is our MAIN indie, so it deserve its place here, untill concluded and we can agree on stable indicator… G.
What about the one posted by @Lowphat here which is already part of the v.1.2 ?
When forward testing I didn’t notice any repainting, and peak through areas match with simplex indicator so the logic should be also good.
Anybody agrees or disagrees?
V.
Hi @jaguar1637, I’m trying to add the FFCal_mini to our EA, but I can’t get it to work. I can try only backtesting as there are no news at this time.
I copied the code you posted here but keep getting these values from the indi throughout a day full of news:
MinToNews = 999999
MinSinceNews = 0
The following condition then causes the EA to stop trading:
if(MinToNews<=MinsBeforeNews || MinSinceNews<=MinsAfterNews) ContinueTrading=false;
I have allowed DLL imports in Metatrader.
Any idea what I’m doing wrong?
V.
This is our MAIN indie, so it deserve its place here, untill concluded and we can agree on stable indicator. In the meantime, someone can finalize the other pre-trading conditions functions (FFCAL, Hours, Spread, etc…). G.
regarding the pre-trading conditions:
FFCal -> @Emonts contacted me by PM and sent me a mqh file for this with example on how to call the functions. Now he’s fixing it so it works with prefix/postfix pairs. So this one is covered.
Max. Spread -> I’ll implement this one
Trading Hours, TradeOnMonday, TradeOnFriday, FridayClose -> @slicken had implemented an IsTradeTiime() function in one of the eas that he posted here. It used StartHour and EndHour parameters. So if someone could maybe extend it so it takes also the other input parameters into consideration and returns ‘true’ if all the time conditions are met, this would be great.
Auto TP & SL -> if TP & SL = 0 -> This one is partially done. calcSL() was part of the skeleton ea you posted. calcTP() we don’t have yet. Will it be the same as calcSL() and replacing SL_Factor with TP_Factor?
V.
If you read my posts on the subject: I’m all in favor for MQH file in the FINAL version. For the timebeeing I prefer iCustom calling of the external indicator, for easy debugging and visualization. iCustom doesn’t add lines of code, because the indicator is a separate, stand-alone, MQ4 file. Furthermore, that indicator can be used, monitored, and visually “seen” for correct functionality. G.
I understand and agree with you GG. But all this is possible with v.1.2. The published zip file contains a stand-alone indicator ClearMethod.mq4. It can be attached to a chart and visually see peaks and throughs. One can also check EA behavior against the indicator. For trading decisions EA relys only on this separate indicator.
The reason I decided to keep the mqh file is for reasons explained above. As it is very seldom that just simple, one-line call to iCustom is enough. One always needs some ‘servicing’ functions for any iCustom indicator. In this case, these functions are:
IsPeakThroughChange()
GetPeakThroughHighestHigh()
GetPeakThroughLowestLow()
IsPeak()
Together with function comments they add up to 70 lines of code.But we can leave this discussion. I can publish v.1.3 that will have everything in one file.
V.The v.1.2 IS using iCustom(). The fact that is called from the mqh file can not make any difference. See here: http://docs.mql4.com/basis/preprosessor/include The content of the mqh is placed inside the mq4 that referenced it.
Advantage of using header files, besides reusability, is better logical structuring of the code. We hardly have any trading logic in the EA and the main source file is already almost 700 lines long. Now comes the PeakThrough logic, then CS logic, then Volume logic… It’s not healthy to have everything stuffed in one file. Just my opinion. But as this is a community ea, I will do what the members agree upon.
V.
