FXCharger (による forexstore)
The user has made his system private.
FXCharger 討論
Apr 06, 2018からメンバー
254 投稿
May 10, 2018 at 08:16
MicF posted:
I don't want to defend the ea, as I'm also just a user.
The lotsizes in the myfxbook didn't change.
And my account is healthy.
The max risk controls the stop loss, not the lot size
i.e. lower risk setting equals higher chance to loose.
So 100% risk means lower risk to have loosing trade, but if you have it will be final.
What are you saying 'The max risk controls the stop loss, not the lot size' this is completely wrong statement risk is dependent both on lot size and stop loss not only on stop loss. let me the calculate current risk for the open trades of FXCharger for you
For trade-1
Risk Pips=(Open - S/L)*10000=(1.19611-1.05667)*10000=1394.4Pips
Risk Amount=Risk Pips*Pip Value*Lotsize=1394.4*10*0.35=$4880.4
So current risk for Trade-1=(Risk Amount/Equity Balance)*100=4880.4/24,478.44*100=19.93%
For trade-2
Risk Pips=(Open - S/L)*10000=(1.18681-1.05667)*10000=1301.4Pips
Risk Amount=Risk Pips*Pip Value*Lotsize=1301.4*10*1.4=$18219.6
So current risk for Trade-2=(Risk Amount/Equity Balance)*100=18219.6/24,478.44*100=74.4%
So current risk for Trade-1&Trade-2=94.33%
Now he also opens third trade may be lot size of 5.6. The risk is now more than 100% but you can not lose more than 100% so trade going to close before hitting stop loss due to margin requirement.
This is a classic example of how people lose money by trading without risk control.
The market will trade through it’s path of least resistance .
May 10, 2018 at 10:59
fmlbfx2010 posted:
If risk equal 100, you will loose all your fund
If the risk is 50 , you will loose half of your fund
If the risk is 10, you will loose tenth of your fund
If the risk is 1, you will loose 1% of your fund
You are absolutely right.
And the risk is always greater than the reward so this ea is bad
So take care
It is, what Wayne said, it's too slow.
That's why I probably stop and take my profits.
I have other EAs that are more risky, FXCharger is a calculatable risk.
May 10, 2018 at 11:02
(編集済みのMay 10, 2018 at 11:08)
LongVision posted:
What are you saying 'The max risk controls the stop loss, not the lot size' this is completely wrong statement risk is dependent both on lot size and stop loss not only on stop loss. let me the calculate current risk for the open trades of FXCharger for you
Sorry, if I didn't make myself clear.
I talked about the 'risk setting' of the EA not the 'risk of the trade'.
Your calculations seem to be absolutely right ;-)
Don't know, what the risk settings of the EA are in your case.
Stop loss stays the same on all 4 trades and the and the risk of all trades sum up to the risk setting of the EA.
I checked this with my current risk setting of 35%.
May 24, 2018 at 08:15
I see it happened!
Didn't notice it.
As said it crashed down the max. Risk setting which seem to was 20%.
Didn't crash my account, I've set it to 35%.
Thats what I said:
Decreasing this setting will increase the likelyhood to hit the stopp loss.
And as you can see the profits afterwards...
.. I'd bet the setting is now 100% again, to catch up the losses.
Didn't notice it.
As said it crashed down the max. Risk setting which seem to was 20%.
Didn't crash my account, I've set it to 35%.
Thats what I said:
Decreasing this setting will increase the likelyhood to hit the stopp loss.
And as you can see the profits afterwards...
.. I'd bet the setting is now 100% again, to catch up the losses.
forex_trader_305974
Feb 16, 2016からメンバー
74 投稿
May 31, 2018 at 06:00
RoboFX123 posted:
Yes it is same account as is in signalstart. Now the vendor changed the risk. Start firts lot is from 0.10 to 0.35 lots. He wants to quickly catch up with the loss and hence stopped tracking on myfxbook. He is desperate.
Hello!
We always said, that there are no systems that never get loss. I told that it will happen someday with our robot but it's not so scary. Sooner or later the loss will be anyway 😄. That is why we recommend to use drawdown control in our EA.
Yes, you are right, we changed risks, to be able to recover deposit fast. And this idea is damn good because of two factors:
1. As you can see FXCharger has no losess from 2013 year at backtests. And this also proves by live trading from very begining of 2016 year. So we can co we can conclude that losess is a very rare thing for our system. And what is the chance that it will have second loss in near period? It's very and very small chance of that. This couple of months is the best moment to have larger risks and greater profitability.
2. Nobody like drawdowns and then recover the deposit for long time. But with our system risk of second loss is so very low, that we can recover our profits for very quick period of time.
'He is desperate' - It is not so 😁 Everything is fine. We have low drawdown.
forex_trader_305974
Feb 16, 2016からメンバー
74 投稿
May 31, 2018 at 06:00
WayneO posted:
Profits are too slow with this EA, I have removed it from my live test account and will therefore not be following this thread any longer.
Good luck folks.
Hello and goodbye. We will miss you 😭
forex_trader_305974
Feb 16, 2016からメンバー
74 投稿
May 31, 2018 at 06:01
MicF posted:
I see it happened!
Didn't notice it.
As said it crashed down the max. Risk setting which seem to was 20%.
Didn't crash my account, I've set it to 35%.
Thats what I said:
Decreasing this setting will increase the likelyhood to hit the stopp loss.
And as you can see the profits afterwards...
.. I'd bet the setting is now 100% again, to catch up the losses.
Hello. FXCharger works in that way, that at any specified risk it will have lotsize and stoploss that will give possibility to system to work right and have the same point of loss for 30% and for 100% risks. So your specified risk % doesn't effect on reliability of the system it effect only on amount of possibly loss money. You can easily check it at backtests with different risks - results will be the same.
forex_trader_305974
Feb 16, 2016からメンバー
74 投稿
May 31, 2018 at 06:01
The best thing in our loss, that nobody of our customers didn't get the same loss, but only us 😄. It's looks like was some issue at our broker side.
May 31, 2018 at 09:55
(編集済みのMay 31, 2018 at 09:57)
fxcharger posted:
FXCharger works in that way, that at any specified risk it will have lotsize and stoploss that will give possibility to system to work right and have the same point of loss for 30% and for 100% risks. So your specified risk % doesn't effect on reliability of the system it effect only on amount of possibly loss money. You can easily check it at backtests with different risks - results will be the same.
I backtested that and with 20% I had more losses.
How come?
May 31, 2018 at 10:02
(編集済みのMay 31, 2018 at 10:03)
So we can co we can conclude that losess is a very rare thing for our system. And what is the chance that it will have second loss in near period? It's very and very small chance of that. This couple of months is the best moment to have larger risks and greater profitability.
2. Nobody like drawdowns and then recover the deposit for long time. But with our system risk of second loss is so very low, that we
That's obviously statistically not valid.
If you roll a dice and score a 6, the chance to get a 6 on the second roll is exactly the same like the first time, 1/6.
forex_trader_305974
Feb 16, 2016からメンバー
74 投稿
Jun 01, 2018 at 08:09
MicF posted:fxcharger posted:
FXCharger works in that way, that at any specified risk it will have lotsize and stoploss that will give possibility to system to work right and have the same point of loss for 30% and for 100% risks. So your specified risk % doesn't effect on reliability of the system it effect only on amount of possibly loss money. You can easily check it at backtests with different risks - results will be the same.
I backtested that and with 20% I had more losses.
How come?
Possibly you have too low deposit or leverage, that it why with lower risk, the leverage is enough. Anyway I suggest you to contact our support, they will help you to figure out everything!
forex_trader_305974
Feb 16, 2016からメンバー
74 投稿
Jun 01, 2018 at 08:10
MicF posted:So we can co we can conclude that losess is a very rare thing for our system. And what is the chance that it will have second loss in near period? It's very and very small chance of that. This couple of months is the best moment to have larger risks and greater profitability.
2. Nobody like drawdowns and then recover the deposit for long time. But with our system risk of second loss is so very low, that we
That's obviously statistically not valid.
If you roll a dice and score a 6, the chance to get a 6 on the second roll is exactly the same like the first time, 1/6.
If you do not take into account all the factors, then you are right. But in our situation you need to take into account history. Simple example: What is the chance of eagle side of the coin, when you toss it? It's easy, the chance of each side is 50/50%. If we toss coin 100 times, approximately we will get 50 eagles and 50 tails. But if will be the situation, that we toss the coin 50 times, and get eagle side only 10 times and 40 times of another side of the coin. For the next 50 times of tosses, chance will be the same 50/50? Or we understand that now probability theory will 'try' to balance the scales of probability and next 50 times of tosses, will have approximately 40 eagles and 10 another side of coin.
This is a primitive (rough) example, but it shows approximately what I mean. There are many factors that make effect on probability. We can't get guaranty from probability, but we can get it on our side and use it.
I hope this is an interesting food for thoughts 😄
Jun 03, 2018 at 06:05
MicF posted:Rolling a dice is simply random.So we can co we can conclude that losess is a very rare thing for our system. And what is the chance that it will have second loss in near period? It's very and very small chance of that. This couple of months is the best moment to have larger risks and greater profitability.
2. Nobody like drawdowns and then recover the deposit for long time. But with our system risk of second loss is so very low, that we
That's obviously statistically not valid.
If you roll a dice and score a 6, the chance to get a 6 on the second roll is exactly the same like the first time, 1/6.
market does not move randomly.
So your example is not valid.
Jun 03, 2018 at 09:52
togr posted:MicF posted:Rolling a dice is simply random.So we can co we can conclude that losess is a very rare thing for our system. And what is the chance that it will have second loss in near period? It's very and very small chance of that. This couple of months is the best moment to have larger risks and greater profitability.
2. Nobody like drawdowns and then recover the deposit for long time. But with our system risk of second loss is so very low, that we
That's obviously statistically not valid.
If you roll a dice and score a 6, the chance to get a 6 on the second roll is exactly the same like the first time, 1/6.
market does not move randomly.
So your example is not valid.
Haha, read the scientific works from Eugene Fama, Ken French, Robert Schiller!
Market movements are random and hence unpredictable.
Jun 04, 2018 at 10:50
MicF posted:togr posted:MicF posted:Rolling a dice is simply random.So we can co we can conclude that losess is a very rare thing for our system. And what is the chance that it will have second loss in near period? It's very and very small chance of that. This couple of months is the best moment to have larger risks and greater profitability.
2. Nobody like drawdowns and then recover the deposit for long time. But with our system risk of second loss is so very low, that we
That's obviously statistically not valid.
If you roll a dice and score a 6, the chance to get a 6 on the second roll is exactly the same like the first time, 1/6.
market does not move randomly.
So your example is not valid.
Haha, read the scientific works from Eugene Fama, Ken French, Robert Schiller!
Market movements are random and hence unpredictable.
In such case onone will make profit
forex_trader_305974
Feb 16, 2016からメンバー
74 投稿
Jun 04, 2018 at 13:18
togr posted:MicF posted:Rolling a dice is simply random.So we can co we can conclude that losess is a very rare thing for our system. And what is the chance that it will have second loss in near period? It's very and very small chance of that. This couple of months is the best moment to have larger risks and greater profitability.
2. Nobody like drawdowns and then recover the deposit for long time. But with our system risk of second loss is so very low, that we
That's obviously statistically not valid.
If you roll a dice and score a 6, the chance to get a 6 on the second roll is exactly the same like the first time, 1/6.
market does not move randomly.
So your example is not valid.
I am working on developing and programming at Forex olmost 10 years and all this time it is my full time work. Believe me, it moves almost randomly. But if you know much things about pseudo-random, you know that there are exist ways to hack it. There are was period when smart people hack casino gaming machines and get much money form that. They just knows what pseudo-random algorithm was used at specific machine. In programming always use pseudo-random number.
I don't say that Forex use pseudo-random to generate quotes, I am sure not, or not always - nobody knows (almost 😄), but it is works for all as random, but someone knows how to get profit with this 'random' as it was with casino gaming machines.
It's very easy to checkout, I did it in my first year of working at Forex coding. Just make EA that opens trades randomly (buy or sell) without analising of market. Use the same stops for TP and SL, for example 100TP and 100SL. If you make the backtest for year or more, you will see, that you have about 50% of wining trades (it's usually a little bit lower then 50% because of spread).
The possibility of win is the same as loss (almost because of spread), and you get 50/50 chance of win. Does not look like my example with a coin? 😀
Guys, I don't deceive you, I just telling you things that I got with my huge experience at Forex and I am honest in it. Anyway, it's my view of Forex, but I have some proofs that it works so. All of you can have yours vision of Forex, but has you any proofs that it works so?
Jun 04, 2018 at 13:42
fxcharger posted:togr posted:MicF posted:Rolling a dice is simply random.So we can co we can conclude that losess is a very rare thing for our system. And what is the chance that it will have second loss in near period? It's very and very small chance of that. This couple of months is the best moment to have larger risks and greater profitability.
2. Nobody like drawdowns and then recover the deposit for long time. But with our system risk of second loss is so very low, that we
That's obviously statistically not valid.
If you roll a dice and score a 6, the chance to get a 6 on the second roll is exactly the same like the first time, 1/6.
market does not move randomly.
So your example is not valid.
I am working on developing and programming at Forex olmost 10 years and all this time it is my full time work. Believe me, it moves almost randomly. But if you know much things about pseudo-random, you know that there are exist ways to hack it. There are was period when smart people hack casino gaming machines and get much money form that. They just knows what pseudo-random algorithm was used at specific machine. In programming always use pseudo-random number.
I don't say that Forex use pseudo-random to generate quotes, I am sure not, or not always - nobody knows (almost 😄), but it is works for all as random, but someone knows how to get profit with this 'random' as it was with casino gaming machines.
It's very easy to checkout, I did it in my first year of working at Forex coding. Just make EA that opens trades randomly (buy or sell) without analising of market. Use the same stops for TP and SL, for example 100TP and 100SL. If you make the backtest for year or more, you will see, that you have about 50% of wining trades (it's usually a little bit lower then 50% because of spread).
The possibility of win is the same as loss (almost because of spread), and you get 50/50 chance of win. Does not look like my example with a coin? 😀
Guys, I don't deceive you, I just telling you things that I got with my huge experience at Forex and I am honest in it. Anyway, it's my view of Forex, but I have some proofs that it works so. All of you can have yours vision of Forex, but has you any proofs that it works so?
It is very easy when you do not understand why market is moving in some way you call it random.
It is the same when you were not able to explain the lightning you said it is curse of god :)
Jun 04, 2018 at 13:52
@fxcharger
Exactly, that's why I use this EA.
As I wrote a bit earlier, FXCharger doesn't try to 'outguess' the market, it uses a simple yet intelligent strategy to compensate on looses.
That's why my FXCharger doesn't do the same trades as anybody elses.
Hence I can have a drawback, where anybody else doesn't, and vice versa of course.
Markets move randomly Eugene Fama was awarded with a noble price because of that.
You need to find something, which doesn't try to predict the next candle.
Martingale is one of it.
I find it funny that those blaming martingale strategies try to predict the next candle.
Is like a flat earther trys to fly to the moon.
So clever strategy @fxcharger ;-)
Exactly, that's why I use this EA.
As I wrote a bit earlier, FXCharger doesn't try to 'outguess' the market, it uses a simple yet intelligent strategy to compensate on looses.
That's why my FXCharger doesn't do the same trades as anybody elses.
Hence I can have a drawback, where anybody else doesn't, and vice versa of course.
Markets move randomly Eugene Fama was awarded with a noble price because of that.
You need to find something, which doesn't try to predict the next candle.
Martingale is one of it.
I find it funny that those blaming martingale strategies try to predict the next candle.
Is like a flat earther trys to fly to the moon.
So clever strategy @fxcharger ;-)
Jun 04, 2018 at 13:54
togr posted:
It is very easy when you do not understand why market is moving in some way you call it random.
It is the same when you were not able to explain the lightning you said it is curse of god :)
Maybe, but current science knowledge is, they are random ;-)
It may turn out one day, that it's wrong, we'll see ;-)
forex_trader_305974
Feb 16, 2016からメンバー
74 投稿
Jun 04, 2018 at 14:43
togr posted:fxcharger posted:
I am working on developing and programming at Forex olmost 10 years and all this time it is my full time work. Believe me, it moves almost randomly. But if you know much things about pseudo-random, you know that there are exist ways to hack it. There are was period when smart people hack casino gaming machines and get much money form that. They just knows what pseudo-random algorithm was used at specific machine. In programming always use pseudo-random number.
I don't say that Forex use pseudo-random to generate quotes, I am sure not, or not always - nobody knows (almost 😄), but it is works for all as random, but someone knows how to get profit with this 'random' as it was with casino gaming machines.
It's very easy to checkout, I did it in my first year of working at Forex coding. Just make EA that opens trades randomly (buy or sell) without analising of market. Use the same stops for TP and SL, for example 100TP and 100SL. If you make the backtest for year or more, you will see, that you have about 50% of wining trades (it's usually a little bit lower then 50% because of spread).
The possibility of win is the same as loss (almost because of spread), and you get 50/50 chance of win. Does not look like my example with a coin? 😀
Guys, I don't deceive you, I just telling you things that I got with my huge experience at Forex and I am honest in it. Anyway, it's my view of Forex, but I have some proofs that it works so. All of you can have yours vision of Forex, but has you any proofs that it works so?
It is very easy when you do not understand why market is moving in some way you call it random.
It is the same when you were not able to explain the lightning you said it is curse of god :)
I think you didn't read my post carefully. Try to do it once more 😄
'I don't say that Forex use pseudo-random to generate quotes, I am sure not, or not always - nobody knows' - I said that it is not random, but because of dozens of things that have affect on way of market it's like random for us and almost for everyone. Nobody can analise all things that affect on Forex.
I have told you experiment that prooves that it is look like random for everyone it's acts like a random.
