@l-andorrà
You can optimize the SMA_MODE the first way jstap showed you.
Set -> start value : Simple
stop value : Linear weighted
And the optimizer will go through all SMA_MODE. Just the optimization will be a bit messy as it isn't a quantitative parameter.

@TipsyWisdom
Yes I was serious, predetermined stop levels(SL-TP) are problematic when not on ticks modelling. Or it is more problematic because there will always be inaccuracies in the tester compared to live anyway, even on ticks.
But on 1m OHLC, the code is executed every OHLC points, that are pretty far each one from each other.
So, except if by chance the next execution models the price at your exact stop levels, it will likely be exceeded by much. And I don't know exactly how but the tester in these cases "correct" this gap rather in your direction.
Such a way that if you traded randomly with stop levels on OHLC modelling, you would be winning.
To overcome this I advise, instead of using predetermined stop levels, using conditions :
Not -> buy(TP=1.2)
But -> buy(no TP) , and if price is above 1.2 next OHLC execution close it.

@iceyheart
On holiday his EA is doing the job ; )

Try replacing buy trades with sell trades and vice-versa, so it will be the exact opposite strategy. If it is still profitable that's a bug.

@Ipod
I haven't investigated how it works exactly but : In live the stop levels will be placed on the broker sever side, and the price will be modeled based on them(based on the stop level that will be triggered). When you use stop levels on the tester, the price is modeled discontinuously(as live), independent of these stop levels. Then on the tester the price jumps from one point to another that are never(almost) exactly at the level of these stops. And here I lack knowledge, I don't know if it's enough that one stop level gets triggered, and if it's a TP it will be at the level above(level of price modeling), if it's a SL at its exact level. Or if it must trigger both stop levels and then it will always consider the TP was triggered first.
I think roar knows.

@roar
@l-andorrà
You right i managed to do with variables in 30 minutes, what i was trying to do with flag since few days..
Thanks for the advice

@l-andorrà
I think you are just using fibo parameters wrongly. As you can see fibo levels are between 0 and 32. It is the ID if each level, not the value it self. So if the reference level is 100%, try to set : Property = price by level ; Fibonacci level = 6.
Level 100 doesn't exists thats probably why it returns a 0 value.

@roar
Even though, my knowledge in the domain is very poor, i saw your topic and i couldn't avoid making the link with a formula i've seen recently about reproducing sort of chaos, it is :
X=4.x(1-x) with x between 0 and 1, both excluded, and replacing x by the results in the next operation, and
so on, as a mathematical series.
Not sure you can reproduce a 100% random chart, when even this exemple has his rule, it would give something crazy. I think youll be able to use this pretty simple equation in excel without any problem.

First time i'm posting in this section, just wanted to share with you my project drawing trend lines.
It draws dynamic support resistance lines, on higher lows and higher highs, using RSI, and linear regression formula, to find best placement of the line.
This is one version of the project which as all can be indefinitely upgraded.. if you want to add something.
https://fxdreema.com/shared/jbgI13yne

@roar
Yes got it, pretty smart. Im gona consider it, it may be useful to me later!

@ibrah360ai
I quickly looked at the code of the indicators, and it seems to be just a slightly advanced version of traditional technical analysis(chartism). With automated support/resistance bullshit levels triggering.
You should look for machine learning algorithms rather.
Two months of profitability is quite insignificant though, and is likely due to luck.

@ibrah360ai
Another useless strategy, which you will see forward will make you loose money.

@albyxx
Indeed, the number of combinations is : ((stop-start)/step+1)^parameters.
Increasing the step size decreases exponentially the number of combinations, and at the same time it reduces the over-fitting(which is good) but also the finesse.
So too thin steps induces too much computational costs and high over-fitting probability, while too thick steps induces a lack of finesse(accuracy).
Better using the fast genetic algorithm though.

@l-andorrà
Interesting, especially if these 60000 lines are executed every call. How much faster ? Have you compared the optimization time of both versions ?

@Bogdaiki
Can't really say what is going on without having access to inside the blocks but first, there is no display during optimization. Prints or draws are not executed thus make no optimization difference.
The number of cores on CPUs is limited compared to GPUs. You can split the code of the EA to be executed on several GPU cores but it is not much worthy as it will be much time consuming to code. Moreover on large sets of parameters it is the optimizer algorithm that is the most time(power) consuming, not the code of the EA itself. And it doesn't allow for GPU calculation. Still there are other solutions like the MQL5 cloud network.
Placing the EA under other tabs will make no speed difference in this case. Nor declaring variables on "on Init" really it is more about code cleanliness even though fxdreema code is far to be optimized.

Of course you can create renko charts. You need to create a custom symbol.
One way could be by exporting the bars data of the instrument/pair, modifying it with a third party program like excel, and create the custom symbol(renko) with the modified bars data.
Pretty sure you can find such modified bars data, or at least a tutorial on the mql5 website.
This being said I never see algorithms trading renko charts, not sure this is worth it.

@mc
As mentioned you can only declare functions(closeAllOrdersAsync) on the global scope. Here it is declared on the event handler "OnTick". But I don't think you can access the global scope from the fxdreema builder anyway.
The "OrderSendAsync" function needs 2 parameters on mql5 not 1:

@CAVINCENT
As you can see at the top left of the picture this is the graph of the S&P 500. It's rather dedicated to equities, but you can imagine doing it on gold as it follows inflation. Machine learning works also.

@Gary-0
I don't see the point of looking for self-learning algorithms. Concerning trading, a predefined criterion like the "balance max" is sufficient to optimize it in the right direction. That is simply supervised learning. You can find plenty of ML models like Artificial Neural Networks on the mql5 website. But you will probably need to learn a bit coding to implement them.
There are little models that a PC has enough computational power to optimize that are quite performant.

@ZakTrading
The issue is manly the EA. As brokers of No Dealing Desk type are supposed to not intervene in the transaction process, how could they manipulate the price ?

There is no "market coherence" that depends on the fact that patterns are conserved. On the contrary, a perfectly efficient market would offer no recurring pattern, and would be impossible to predict. Patterns are like the reflect of a replicating estimation bias. Indeed the increase of competition make it harder to predict the price, but it is also more rewarding. It's harder to find a good pattern, but once you have found one it is better conserved. That's why the most performants EAs operate also on the most traded(competitive) instruments like : the EURUSD.

I think the best EAs today are relying solely on the technical analysis. Because the price series offer a great data base(quantitatively and maybe also qualitatively as it is pretty normalized) the learning models can learn on. Considering price series only(technical analysis) and ignoring fundamental analysis, still allows for an almost infinite, potential predictive capacity.