FX Cure EA (TEA Free)

I want this to be the new thread for those testing my new EA as discussed here:

https://www.myfxbook.com/community/trading-systems/tomsea-wpfx-live/161170,130#?pt=2&p=129&o=161170

The beta version 0.9 is only $15 and does not require Tom's EA to run.

It is a stand alone automatic EA described in the attachement...

Drew

The link to my FX Cure demo is:

https://www.myfxbook.com/members/ForexCuredotcom/tea-free/712695

I started with $50K on IamFX with multiplier_filter set to 1. After a couple weeks I increased
the Risk from 1 to 2. So, all 1X orders are blocked. All 3X orders are approx. 0.30 lots now.

Thank you Drew. Looking forward to the discussion.

Hi All, Congrats for this new thread.

Couple of questions to start up better :
- Can I start directly with multiplier_filter = 3 ?
- I've seen in your demo account that your min lot size is 0.15. Is that when you started with multiplier_filter = 1 ?
- About pairs, I've seen that you've picked many pairs and ones that are trending pretty well, which is the opposite of the strategy we used to apply to marti/grid EA's. Do you think that, indeed, with this new approach, trending pairs will work best ?

Take care,

-David

David. Of course you can start with multiplier_filter = 3.

Since this blocks all 1X and 3X orders, you might not see
ANY orders appear before at least 3 days.

No, pairs that trend for too long lead to large drawdowns
and eventual stop out.

That was the design in Tom's EA - when any trade went
-600 pips in the opposite direction, it is closed. And most
of those occurrences are with 1X orders. It does happen
on 3X and 6X and 9X trades, but much, much less often.

This code is too new for this to have occurred yet. That's
a major reason for me trading all 28 major/minor pairs - to
observe this behavior and how it's handled in a forward test.

Somebody asked about if they can backtest this EA. YES!
Please do. I have tried until my fingers and brain bleed but
can never get over 25% accuracy on those back-test.
But figuring that out is another thread somewhere else.

My take on trending pairs is not so much the trend, but the
lack of pullback because we are counter-trending and depend
on a healthy pullback to close our baskets. That said be afraid
of any minors using NZD and JPY. I promise you will eventually
lose money on those - unless you have a TON of Equity.
They have been known for some epic trends, before eventual
pullback - even Months later.

I hope this helps.

-Drew
==========================================

Thanks for your answer.

I see what you meant with too much trending pairs. I'll follow your advise.

Couple of questions for you :
- Have you integrated some hard-coded stoploss (like 600pips on Tom's EA) ?
- Can you confirm that there won't be any liquidation of the positions or that the EA won't stop taking positions until the broker prevent it ?

- Being able to backtest your EA would be very interesting. Tom's EA wasn't backtestable for what I (think to) know and according to developper (as per his forum intervention) because of use of other TF (5mn 60mn) at some points.
Therefore, the only way to know if your code if backtestable would be to know if your code includes use of this statement :
iMACD(NULL, Timeframe ....) where timeframe would be different than the current timeframe (M1).

Thanks, Regards,

- David

I've just seen these 2 orders closed today on your forward's test link :
- GBPJPY Buy 0.30 - 1.20 156.15000 156.16000 1.0 1.20 2d 0.00%
- GBPJPY Buy 0.15 - 154.80 157.71000 156.16000 -155.0 -240.50 5d -0.46%

Total basket closed is negative.
Did you close that manually or the EA did it ?

If the EA did it, that would mean the closing point is equal to the one that would be used if x1 / x2 / x3 were present.
But because they are not present, the orders opened are not hedged and we close the basket on negative P/L.

What about that aspect ? Did you work on it when designing your EA ?
1) Did you choose the loss vs the stopout ?
2) Did you mean to have a positive basket closing and there is a programming mistake ?

Thanks, Regards,

- David

David. I will have my programmer look into that as well as some
other curious closes, certainly. But it make take a day or two...

He responded to your second-last question about -600pip stoploss.
Unfortunately, English is not his first language, so I'll have to read
his (really long) response many times and contact him again.
Eventually, I'll get the answer.

Hey, I did say this was v0.9 ;) ...


-d
============================================

Got it David. That GBP/JPY loss today was due to my changing the multiplier from 1 to 2.
The Oct. 2 order was with setting '1', but was still open when I changed the setting to '2'
So, the next GBP/JPY opened (they (baskets) are tracked internally by Magic Number)
in the same baske, and the calculations got screwed up. (I know not very technical)

So, we find our first Rule now....

-->1. Don't change the multiplier_filter setting when there are still open orders (!)

I'm not saying it will result in a loss everytime, but I just showed that it can...

-D
================================================

Also,David, to your earlier question...about Backtesting. Yes, there are
several lines of variable assignments containing language such as:

double macd1 = iMACD(NULL, MACD_TF,.....) so I guess the code is
testing different timeframes to check for an entry point - and will not
work in a back test. Is that what you where saying?

-d
========================================

Hey Drew,

1) No worries. We are here to work together, debug, and make it profitable and out of reach of stopout (may god hear me out).
You never promised something perfect but an idea to explore, right ?

2) Do you have the 600 pips stop loss hard-coded in you EA ? And do you have any 'stop-loss' and/or 'liquidation' and/or 'stop-accumulating position' feature hard-coded in the EA ?

3) If the variable MACD_TF can be other TF than M1 in iMACD(NULL, MACD_TF,.....) then, according to my experience and many other forums reading, we can't backtest it ...

The only way to be able to backtest it would be to use only M1 timeframe.
We would have to find a substitute to iMACD(NULL, H1, ...), with iMACD(NULL, M1, X,X) where X,X would be higher periods value to reflect something equal to H1 statement.
(ie : is Moving Average 60 on M1 = Moving Average 1 on H1)

Hope you get it clear.
If some mathematics teacher could put its experience on it, that might be our call to make it backtestable.

Cheers,

- David

Drew-

Thanks again for the opportunity to part take and share my to cents.
This is good by skipping some of the early trades to prevent huge DD...

But when the EA do make its trades based on the X value it is still taken into consideration the higher lot size for that level of the assume basket.

I would like to have the option to alter that lots size.

For example, with iRiskLevel 1 and Multiplier_filter 9
The first trade will start at .12 lot (Variable X).
I wold like to be able to alter that lot size (Variable X)
By dividing to reduce it:

X/6=.02 lots
X/4=.03 lots
X/3=.04 lots
x/2=.06 lots

So may be in the EA input we get a check box, 'Modify/reduce lots' = YES
Then divisible = 6 will change the .12 to .06 lots
     divisible = 4 will change the .12 to .03 lots, etc, etc....

But what ever the new lots size then the original sequence will pick up from there.

Some reasons for this are We will be able to still further reduce my DD/risk exposure although we already have one advantage of entering the counter trend hither up the trend. Also, as a small retail trader (most of us) we would be able to spread our risk across several pairs using a 5 to 10k high leverage account. Because I believe that trading .02 lots on six different pairs will perform better and with a smoother curve that just the EURUSD alone trading .12 lots. And with filter= 9, iRiskLevel = 1 @ .12 lots we can for get about trading more that one pair with a 5k account.
 
Needless to mention, the people with the 50k account can ignore this variable if they want.

In back test of 2011, the 5k account blew up.
If my above idea was available to reduce the starting lot size then, this account would have been save.

Note: I tend to always back test with 5 to 10K accounts because I'm trying to get the EAs to work for me.
Why back test with 100K when I don't have that kind of money.
But I know that drew have to use larger demo account to do this thing...

-Del

hi I see there are a few messags to respond to here.
 I am travelling for Canadian Thanksgiving and will touch
base in a couple days or sooner...

-d
===================================

Hey All,

The EA hasn't opened any trade yet and it's been more than 4 full days with settings Irisk = 1 and Multiplier = 1.

Has it done otherwise for anyone ?
If so, what are the settings you used ?

Thanks,

- David

Hi David. I had one open on the 11th for GBP/NZD
and 2 more just today for EUR/NZD and NZD/JPY

So, it appears something in common is NZD dollar.

Did you have the EA enabled on any of these charts?

-DREW
==================================================

Hi Drew

Indeed I don t have any NZD working with FXCure.
I m in 2 set tests :
- eurusd gbpusd usdcad
- eurjpy gbpjpy usdjpy

No trades at all for more than a week now.
You might be right that only NZD crosses seems to open trades.
Might Need to fix it out.

Also, Can you confirm that your settings are single numbers ? (1,2 or 3 and not 10,20 or 30)

Thanks

- David

I am running it on 2 demo accounts with settings Risk 3 multiplier 0. It has opened and closed many trades.
Do you have the allow live trades box checked? Also I checked allow DLL imports, not sure if it is needed but it seems to be working.

Thanks for the information.

First thing I do when install a new MT4 is :
Option -> Expert Advisor -> allow everything & uncheck restrictions
Sure it doesn't come from there.

I haven't tried multiplier 0 though...
Been trying 3 and 1.

I ll try Mult. x0 in order to isolate the problem.

I ll let you know.
Cheers

David

Yes, multiplier = 0 lets in all levels, including all the 1X orders.

So, you will have approximately 9 times as many orders as multiplier 1X.

But that defeats the purpose - you will likely blow your account too if the
iRisk is too high or your Equity is too low.

-d
=========================================