ForexForums.org - View Single Post

06-27-2008, 04:27 PM

Shivanand,

Thanks for the head up on Willama system. The result is nice and may be this is the answer to our search.

Sam

----- Original Message -----
From: Shivanand
To: MetaTrader_Experts_and_Indicators (A...oups (DOT) com
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:28 AM
Subject: [MT_E and I] Mod EA of WIllama system

Hi guys, here is the final statment of this EA which was supposed to be run as per willama's system ( http://www.forexpeacearmy.com/forex-...ng-system.html )

Its on ALpari Demo at 1:100 leverage with opening balance of 3000.00

EA Attached

Warm Regards

Shiva
http://www.nyfx.org
http://www.dubaitradeguide.com
http://www.tradeguide.cn

--- On Fri, 6/27/08, Eben Brand <eben.brand (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

From: Eben Brand <eben.brand (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
Subject: RE: [MT_E and I] Winning EAs= Math based EAs that don't use indicators
To: MetaTrader_Experts_and_Indicators (A...oups (DOT) com
Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 6:16 AM

As always, very sensible, Charles!!

While having said that, there is one thing that does repeat itself, and that’s chart patterns, in the bigger scheme of things, esp on the 4H and D1 TFs, so maybe I can rally some support from likeminded individuals to build an EA that matches chart patterns to a known set of patterns, and then trades on ‘the last leg’ of the pattern, which is essentially what the BIG divergence / gartley traders do. To time entry one could then look at e.g. bollinger and divergence between MACD and price movement, which indicates something is to happen soon.

Just musing away here, also a bit disillusioned with the average EA, even with the ‘good’ EA… At the same time I do believe it is possible to develop EAs that are profitable, and that somehow use price action to determine its course of action.

I also believe that there are ways to capture market movements with a grid-based system, some brokers will just complain over the large number of orders being placed – not sure why, as it means more profit for them.

Regards

Eben

From: MetaTrader_Experts_ and_Indicators@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MetaTrader_ Experts_and_ Indicators@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Charles Wilkes
Sent: 27 June 2008 12:16 PM
To: MetaTrader_Experts_ and_Indicators@ yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [MT_E and I] Winning EAs= Math based EAs that don't use indicators

Wow! This is certainly radical, yet many have told me exactly the same thing (indicators don't work), and the logic re EAs not working is certainly correct in my experience. I've got maybe a thousand -- well, at least several hundred EAs, none of which work consistently. And if they did, the author would be using them, not selling them or giving them away (we are all soft hearted here). So the comments here are spot on.

What to do about it. I've pretty much given up on EAs, but I do try to use the power of the computer to help me trade manually. I have also given up long ago on the idea of artificial intelligence -- doesn't work either, and that is what EAs try to implement I think. But the author of this original note came up with something I hadn't considered -- that they could be a way to use the power of the computer in new ways to "win" that is beyond the power of the brain at least as we know it. If this is true, then pure math is the only hope to figure that out for sure. But yet many indicators were written or originally proposed by some of the best math wizards the world has yet produced. Doesn't mean they were the best that will ever exist -- that is an evolving field as well as everything else that humanity has ever done.

So the proposed idea of profit catching is one idea which certainly should be developed. And time will work it's evolutionary magic and find many other ways as it always has. But for this to happen, there must be collaboration between idea developers. It will never happen in the dark by a single individual, no matter what his genius level may be. So at least in my opinion it's certainly okay to make a fresh start -- abandon indicators (many have done this already), but don't abandon working together with others of like minds. Please don't give up on forums -- they are the only hope to find collaborators with common interests. I'm not proposing myself -- I'm content to be an interested spectator. But there are many who should be working together on this problem. Hopefully I'll see the results of this before I'm out of the picture.

Charles Wilkes

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:27 AM, StevenEnsign <stevenensign@ yahoo.com> wrote:

06-27-2008, 04:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
Sam Guest Posts: n/a	Re: [MT_E and I] Mod EA of WIllama system Shivanand, Thanks for the head up on Willama system. The result is nice and may be this is the answer to our search. Sam ----- Original Message ----- From: Shivanand To: MetaTrader_Experts_and_Indicators (A...oups (DOT) com Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:28 AM Subject: [MT_E and I] Mod EA of WIllama system Hi guys, here is the final statment of this EA which was supposed to be run as per willama's system ( http://www.forexpeacearmy.com/forex-...ng-system.html ) Its on ALpari Demo at 1:100 leverage with opening balance of 3000.00 EA Attached Warm Regards Shiva http://www.nyfx.org http://www.dubaitradeguide.com http://www.tradeguide.cn --- On Fri, 6/27/08, Eben Brand <eben.brand (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: From: Eben Brand <eben.brand (AT) gmail (DOT) com> Subject: RE: [MT_E and I] Winning EAs= Math based EAs that don't use indicators To: MetaTrader_Experts_and_Indicators (A...oups (DOT) com Date: Friday, June 27, 2008, 6:16 AM As always, very sensible, Charles!! While having said that, there is one thing that does repeat itself, and that’s chart patterns, in the bigger scheme of things, esp on the 4H and D1 TFs, so maybe I can rally some support from likeminded individuals to build an EA that matches chart patterns to a known set of patterns, and then trades on ‘the last leg’ of the pattern, which is essentially what the BIG divergence / gartley traders do. To time entry one could then look at e.g. bollinger and divergence between MACD and price movement, which indicates something is to happen soon. Just musing away here, also a bit disillusioned with the average EA, even with the ‘good’ EA… At the same time I do believe it is possible to develop EAs that are profitable, and that somehow use price action to determine its course of action. I also believe that there are ways to capture market movements with a grid-based system, some brokers will just complain over the large number of orders being placed – not sure why, as it means more profit for them. Regards Eben From: MetaTrader_Experts_ and_Indicators@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:MetaTrader_ Experts_and_ Indicators@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Charles Wilkes Sent: 27 June 2008 12:16 PM To: MetaTrader_Experts_ and_Indicators@ yahoogroups. com Subject: Re: [MT_E and I] Winning EAs= Math based EAs that don't use indicators Wow! This is certainly radical, yet many have told me exactly the same thing (indicators don't work), and the logic re EAs not working is certainly correct in my experience. I've got maybe a thousand -- well, at least several hundred EAs, none of which work consistently. And if they did, the author would be using them, not selling them or giving them away (we are all soft hearted here). So the comments here are spot on. What to do about it. I've pretty much given up on EAs, but I do try to use the power of the computer to help me trade manually. I have also given up long ago on the idea of artificial intelligence -- doesn't work either, and that is what EAs try to implement I think. But the author of this original note came up with something I hadn't considered -- that they could be a way to use the power of the computer in new ways to "win" that is beyond the power of the brain at least as we know it. If this is true, then pure math is the only hope to figure that out for sure. But yet many indicators were written or originally proposed by some of the best math wizards the world has yet produced. Doesn't mean they were the best that will ever exist -- that is an evolving field as well as everything else that humanity has ever done. So the proposed idea of profit catching is one idea which certainly should be developed. And time will work it's evolutionary magic and find many other ways as it always has. But for this to happen, there must be collaboration between idea developers. It will never happen in the dark by a single individual, no matter what his genius level may be. So at least in my opinion it's certainly okay to make a fresh start -- abandon indicators (many have done this already), but don't abandon working together with others of like minds. Please don't give up on forums -- they are the only hope to find collaborators with common interests. I'm not proposing myself -- I'm content to be an interested spectator. But there are many who should be working together on this problem. Hopefully I'll see the results of this before I'm out of the picture. Charles Wilkes On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 2:27 AM, StevenEnsign <stevenensign@ yahoo.com> wrote: