Posts made by richard96816

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

Some losing systems never die.

@angela said in FxDreema is awesome!:

@miro1360
i think u r unable to understand what i am implying

it is not about me crying
everybody who has subscribed must be feeling cheated
and if u do not raise voice against wrong then u r being meek
so it was my duty to tell the admins that stop cheating and be true to your duty

evrybody hass paid thru their noses and want worth of their money
but unfortunately the admins are busy collecting money
so their fate is being sealed by their ill deeds

it is for them to redeem themselves now and ensure that they give proper service

if they can't do it then they should return the money along with the interest on the amount they have collected

Sadly, I think fxDreema is as big a loser in this as all of his users. The system is relatively inexpensive. If it lived up to the promise of an easy to use tool many more users would come and use and pay and probably contribute to making it better. The big loss is time more than money. Learning how the bloody thing works. And learning if you can trust it. Lack of basic features, like sufficient documentation makes it harder for users to trust the results of the system with their hard earned trading capital. The potential for losing money through misunderstanding or guessing wrong about how things work is even more destructive of trust.

Perhaps the problem is partially a language-barrier issue. If so that's even more reason to pay someone to do documentation.

Take any block within the system and you will find questions to basic operations that there are no answers provided. Asking for answers in the forum is a total mixed bag and often a large waste of time. Some questions never get answered at all. If the questioner asks one or two followup questions the 'help' seems to often quickly get tired and stops responding.

Why not consider user questions as opportunities to make the system better? A few minutes a day and before long the system will be much better! Before long answering questions will become less and less necessary. And new users will be creating working EAs in less and less time. And they'll be sharing their successes with others and attracting more subscribers.

fxDreema has the potential to be a great product. The 'karma' of being uninterested in working on various important parts because they're not fun to work on may keep it from ever achieving that greatness.

It's sad to see all the simple, dumb little things that never get fixed. Like the font sizing on the 'Spread:' display that so often makes a users first experience with the system less than professional looking. Or the total lack of FIFO recognition and support. It's not hard, but it's apparently not much fun to fix. Its only money after all. The list is endless.

Mediocrity is a choice.

@miro1360 said in FxDreema is awesome!:

Do you think your karma will improve if you predict and talk about the karma of others and you don't focus on your own?

I advise you:

• forget about forex, forget about investing, forget about gambling
• instead of crying, find a regular job and finally start to fulfill your life with happiness, we can't help you here
• I'm sure the admin is making a refund, just ask him and say it didn't meet your expectations

That was an unhelpful remark.

Assuming fxDreema intends to offer a good, useful service. And assuming he intends to make money at the endeavor, Angela's observations should be considered quite helpful and not something to attack.

If subscribership is actually very low, as suggested, it's most likely because the system seems easy to use, but in practice things don't work as expected. And because each feature is poorly documented the only way to know what things do is to spend lots of time testing yourself -- which certainly shouldn't be necessary. And most likely chases users away.

I like the abilities fxDreema provides. I really hate the lack of documentation and examples. I subscribe a year at a time. But I know I must spend lots of time testing. And I have scripts that hack the .mq4 code it creates to fix bugs.

Once you get past the (much larger than expected) learning curve it becomes a useful tool.

If fxDreema wants a larger subscribership and the larger income that would provide then paying closer attention to all the details that are currently being ignored would certainly help.

So many wonderful and elaborate facilities are provided, and so many tiny details left undone which make things much harder to use. And much more error-prone. For a system expected to control large sums of money that's tragic.

@cpbonzo said in Help with MT4 Scalping limitations by brokers.:

Brokers have these rules for good reason and if you want to use hard stops that are closer than you can currently get you will probably need to find another broker. Alternatively, you could create the EA in such a way that it closes trades at 5 pips profit or 3 pips loss while placing the hard stops at a distance your broker will accept. The hard stops are written into the trade and are visible to the broker, but you can have the EA close a trade at any point for which you can write a condition. This latter approach means your hard stops are only ever hit if, for any reason, your EA ceases to work properly e.g. your MT4 platform crashes.

Very smart. Things break. Good to protect yourself.

Most of all FxDreema is very poorly documented. That is a tragedy.

Pay someone to write a manual and finish the tool.

Add examples for everything. That would go a long way to making things more accessible.

Custom blocks seem very useful. Why are there no loadable examples for users to hack on and learn? Users would be sharing new blocks now if that facility was documented and had lots of examples.

The tool is half done. It has incredible potential. Hire some help and make it better. The results will pay for everything and then some.

If having no stop-loss is a problem with fxDreema's money management (makes sense) then why let the user even try to set it without at least a warning?

Ten more minutes for the programmer, once in his life, would save potentially hundreds or thousands of hours for users.

fxDreema's purpose is to save users time. The many land-mines like this one work against that goal.

Back-testing is fake. It's a simulation. It needs to be built every tick of the way.

Using tick data instead of Open Prices Only is especially slow. Lots of data to move around, create and simulate. Back-testing simulation of time is very imperfect.

Using Once Per Bar, if you're not already, can make a huge difference in the speed of testing.

My apologies. I have been addressing these issues with fxDreema quietly via email for some time with little results. Mostly just insulting responses from him.

It has become quite tiresome.

Sorry, it's been broken since he added it.

People get tired of reporting bugs.

What?!

What is this: chopped liver?

Yes, I know you can cobble together a form of money management from scratch. Why would anyone do that with all these options made available in the Buy now block?

Unless, of course, they don't work. Why would anyone trust their hard-earned money to software that doesn't work right?

I see your point. It doesn't work ... write your own.

Genius! And stupid at the same time.

All the other EA builders have money management that works. That you can trust.
Why can't fxDreema take the time to fix theirs? It's clearly broken.

I sent him links to parts of the MQL4 manual that show examples of the necessary library calls that he's clearly not using. Got no response.

This is not a simple problem. But all the other EA builders have dealt with it.

Perhaps this is another sad place where fxDreema says: "Oh, that's an old block. I don't feel like working on it." How many times have we seen that here.

Regarding money management: that is unacceptable.

Yes, the only safe thing today is to write your own, as you have clearly done. How many other users are aware of this sad, scary situation? Money at stake -- lots of it!

Most people aren't this cavalier with their money. Unless they don't know. What if your bank or your broker were this sloppy? Is fxDreema advertised as a toy? Not meant for actual use in the market? Just for play?

@ambrogio said in Different leverage for different currencies?:

@richard96816 Are you good at answering this question?
Excuse the silly question, but you know what is the financial leverage (leverage)?

Is there ever a time when it would be acceptable for the Buy now block to choose a trade size or volume that is larger than the account will allow and then attempt to open it anyway?

This means that a smaller, acceptable trade size, is kept from opening and EA logic is thrown into confusion.

What makes you think this is insignificant?

Yes, I've tested tons. Brokers outside of the US seem to operate with a single leverage number for a whole account. US rules, on the other hand, are a mess. As the list above shows.

I suspect that fxDreema doesn't deal with this at all. (Especially after the scary comment above about 10:1 or 20:1 ... 'who cares?' Scary!) I often get errors from my various brokers about 'Insufficient Margin' when using fxDreema's money management.
I tell it I want to size my trades to a certain percentage of my account and I get errors from the brokers and refused trades. Not all the time. Just at the extremes. But it should clearly NEVER happen. "Who cares?" is not an appropriate response.

If I tell the Buy now block to open a trade at a certain percentage of my account I should NEVER get an error from my broker about Insufficient Margin. That's just wrong. MQL4 provides all the tools to check these things, but fxDreema doesn't seem to be using them. My guess is that fxDreema doesn't even know how to signal me about margin problems instead of just jamming a trade through anyway.

One piece of a system that needs to be bullet proof above all others is money management. Especially when it's provided as a 'black box' with few controls over the details. It should 'just work'. But it seems to be a little too simple. Or not appropriate for US rules. (I'll try testing to see if this also happens on non-US rules accounts.) It seems clear that not enough checking is going on in fxDreema money management.

I test heavily, all aspects. I care about my bank account. Perhaps others don't test the limits as much as I do. The limits are where you can get into big trouble. Where good money management should protect you.

Thanks

@fxdreema said in Different leverage for different currencies?:

I don't think that this depends on the EA. If the leverage is say 10:1, you can't convince the broker to open a trade with 20:1 leverage.

True. But money management with wrong leverage numbers can make a mess of EA logic. And ruin profit potential. Incorrect risk assessment is pretty serious. Suggesting that an inaccuracy of 100% is trivial is fairly shocking.

Financial software is expected to be accurate. No inaccuracies or accidental doublings allowed, ever.

Frequent trade rejections from your broker due to poor EA math certainly won't help your case should you ever have an issue with that broker's math.

Clean, accurate EAs are golden. Dirty, sloppy EAs are a recipe for disaster. Leaving ANYTHING to chance is just plain wrong (and frankly, stupid.)

How can I convince fxDreema to apply different leverage to the different currencies according to U.S. regulations?

EUR/TRY 8.3:1 . EUR/PLN 20:1 . USD/CZK 20:1 . CAD/CHF 33.3:1
TRY/JPY 8.3:1 . EUR/SGD 20:1 . USD/HKD 20:1 . EUR/AUD 33.3:1
USD/TRY 8.3:1 . GBP/AUD 20:1 . USD/HUF 20:1 . EUR/CHF 33.3:1
USD/MXN 12.5:1 . GBP/CAD 20:1 . USD/PLN 20:1 . EUR/NOK 33.3:1
CHF/ZAR 14.3:1 . GBP/CHF 20:1 . USD/SAR 20:1 . EUR/NZD 33.3:1
EUR/ZAR 14.3:1 . GBP/HKD 20:1 . USD/SGD 20:1 . EUR/SEK 33.3:1
GBP/ZAR 14.3:1 . GBP/JPY 20:1 . USD/THB 20:1 . NZD/CAD 33.3:1
USD/ZAR 14.3:1 . GBP/NZD 20:1 . AUD/JPY 25:1 . NZD/CHF 33.3:1
ZAR/JPY 14.3:1 . GBP/PLN 20:1 . CAD/JPY 25:1 . NZD/USD 33.3:1
AUD/HKD 20:1 . GBP/SGD 20:1 . CHF/JPY 25:1 . USD/CHF 33.3:1
AUD/SGD 20:1 . GBP/USD 20:1 . EUR/JPY 25:1 . USD/NOK 33.3:1
CAD/HKD 20:1 . HKD/JPY 20:1 . NZD/JPY 25:1 . USD/SEK 33.3:1
CAD/SGD 20:1 . NZD/HKD 20:1 . USD/JPY 25:1 . EUR/CAD 50:1
CHF/HKD 20:1 . NZD/SGD 20:1 . AUD/CAD 33.3:1 . EUR/DKK 50:1
EUR/CZK 20:1 . SGD/CHF 20:1 . AUD/CHF 33.3:1 . EUR/USD 50:1
EUR/GBP 20:1 . SGD/HKD 20:1 . AUD/NZD 33.3:1 . USD/CAD 50:1
EUR/HKD 20:1 . SGD/JPY 20:1 . AUD/USD 33.3:1 . USD/DKK 50:1
EUR/HUF 20:1 . USD/CNH 20:1

Thanks!

Happy and Prosperous New Year!

Anyone dealing with FIFO? fxDreema doesn't seem to have a clue about it.

How do I recognize my closes (TP, SL, TS) are failing due to broker enforced FIFO rules and deal with the problem?

Thanks!

Not nearly enough information. Try drawing a picture or providing a better description of what you want to do.

Remove the Once per bar block and things will start working.

Usually the buffer.

When in doubt try everything.

What's a flow?

Perhaps editing the titles of the blocks would help. They will accept a fair amount of text.

Take a look at the close profitable trades block and the other blocks in that group.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.