Best posts made by Abade69

@AlphaOmega I agree that backtesting is not good enough by itself, but it's x1000 times better than just assuming (hoping) that something works and then put money into it without any kind of analysis.

The way I judge experts now is not how good or bad these are in isolation, but how good they are in relation to each other in specific markets and situations, and how they would be able to complement each other when one of the pieces fail.

Markets change constantly and rigid strategies lose their edge and start underperforming when new volatility and structure regimes arise. This is why we also have to adapt and improve our strategy continuously.

The new AI technology will make trading A LOT harder than it already is.

Any of the following:

A) Hide them.
B) Change their color.
C) Insert/remove them from the chart.

Using a key stroke, condition, command from within the EA, and without changing templates (as it resets the variables and screws everything). I know i can do this with objects. Anyone?

@miro1360 Thank you miro, you are always helping other people selflessly, good man!

@NZEFILI You can trust me, I have backtested hundreds of martingale-grid-cost averaging free and commercial strategies and I would never put money into any of them. They got a bad reputation for a good reason.

If you are willing to share your strategy logic I can tell you exactly why it's not such a good idea.

Watering down the x2 multiplier of the martingale doesn't fix the main issue, you are still over-leveraging.

I finished a very simple demo for trading execution using this indicator (please note that I don't recommend you trade like this in a real account), you can find it here:

https://fxdreema.com/shared/WfOK6fDhb

After a random backtest the MT4 platform will give you the indicator settings it was using for the signals:

So now we know that appliedPrice = 1 is "Open Price", so:

0 = Close
1 = Open
2 = High
3 = Low
4 = Median
5 = Typical
6 = Weighted

For TimeFrame "0" is equal to "current", and the rest of the list is in order (0,1,2,3,4,5).

The reason why I don't recommend using "enum" is that you don't have the source file where they are enlisted, so you don't have a way to know the correct way of declaring them. The labels may be different from those shown in the site tutorials. And enums may cause conflict when two indicators within the same EA use similar declarations.

@clubdio I believe you need to add an aditional block for your "trigger" signal.

i.e.: You have your 3 (slower) signals as pre-conditions reading "Candle ID" = 1, then you have your "trigger" which also uses "Candle ID" = 1, so the new block should measure the state before that (Candle ID = 2). this way the EA should not open AGAIN during the same cycle of the fastest reading when the first trade closes after taking profit (which is the problem right now).

Did I get your idea right?

Another solution is to catch the precise buffer that triggers the arrow painting, I'll try to do that.

Edit: I couldn't find it, but the rest of the buffers could be used to mimic the logic of the arrows, or better yet... Creating a MT5 version with the original CCI indicator readings (zero-cross signals) and remove the repainting "feature", it can work exactly the same or even better.

@davidmcc This option brings the same results and it's much cleaner:

MT5 distorts the levels and candles, that's why it may seem a bit off in some places. Hope it works!

@davidmcc Always check the "Candle ID" box, that's where the EA is taking the information from.

Candle ID = 1 means you are reading the last candle information.
Candle ID = 2 means you are reading the information of the candle before 1
and so on..
Candle ID = 0 means you are reading information of the current candle, so the total size will always be zero if you try to read it too early (that's the default value if you leave it empty).

@roar Here is a visual example:

It's the same strategy, same data-set and same instrument. The only difference is the in-sample (training) period.

The first row shows the out of sample results for each month when using a whole year (more trades) for in-sample training. As you can notice it loses -29.22 in 10 months. When using 4 months for in-sample (less trades) it increases performance, even if the parameters that used are always different (inconsistent) for each month. Adapting to current market conditions is x100 times more important than the number of trades used for training.

I know this will be a useful insight for a lot of traders.

I think this may be asked a lot.

Sometimes i need to create EA's that use multiple-timeframes but need the parameters to be editable to prevent duplication (and excessive work). This would add a lot of flexibility for creation AND for testing/optimization.

A view from one of my projects to demonstrate how big it can get without this option:

https://fxdreema.com/builder/shared/YUoEVLcvb

Thanks in advance