Breakout M5 / H4 Nasdaq

Forums ProRealTime English forum ProOrder support Breakout M5 / H4 Nasdaq

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 97 total)
  • #182475

    So weit bin ich heute nicht. Ich denke, M3 auch, oder M2 würde auch funktionieren. Gleicher Zeithorizont, nur schneller. Die Langversion von M3 funktioniert am besten an der Nasdaq. M1 auf SP500 und Dax. Ich habe Dow Jones noch nicht ausprobiert.

    I’m not that far today. I think M3 too, or M2 would work too. Same time horizon, only faster. The long version of M3 works best on the Nasdaq. M1 on SP500 and Dax. I haven’t tried Dow Jones yet.

     

    #182476

    @nonethless: Sorry, I misspelled you.

    #182477

    I Combined Phonetzs code and made a long/short-version

    How to make i better?

    #182479

    Mein Plan wäre, beide Versionen, lang und kurz, einzeln laufen zu lassen. Ohne eine Vollversion daraus zu machen.

    My plan would be to run both versions, long and short, individually. Without making a full version out of it.

    #182483

    @phoentzs

    Only post in the language of the forum that you are posting in. For example English only in the English speaking forums and French only in the French speaking forums.

    Thank you 🙂

     

    #182484

    Maybe one more question for the great masters … Nicolas? Robertogozzi? If you manage entries from large time units with a trailing stop … which TF is best used for this? M1… 5? Is more data history better or faster reaction to a trailing stop?

    I usually use 5-minute or 10-minute TFs for the trailing stop, mainly because they grants more data history, compared to smaller TFs.

     

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #182488

    I made a quick attempt to add short to this but it didn’t seem worth it, I’ll have another try when I get time.

    This is a minor revision to my long version, trying to get the DD as low as poss (positionsize = 0.5)

    These are the key changes:

     

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #182510

    an impressive piece of work, nonetheless.
    What if it would be possible to make a long/short version of this algo 🙂

    #182517

    You can have a go if you have time to crunch the numbers. The core of it would look like this:

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #182520

    If you haven’t used this syntax before

    the ‘t’ represents the type of MA, can be 0 – 8
    ‘p’ I usually optimize from 5 – 50 in steps of 5

    (apologies if you know this already 😁)

    2 users thanked author for this post.
    #182728

    Thanks alot for the input nonetheless. I made an attempt for long/short-version.
    Do u guys see any improvements? nonetheless, robertogozzi, phoentzs?
    I want to get rid of the big drawdown in december 2021.

    Backtest with Size 0.5
    CUMULATEORDERS = false

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #182736

    In the itf both the % trail and ATR trail are active, which one did you want to use?

    #182737

    Using both gets better results then just one when i backtested

    #182739

    I am not sure if the idea is a good one. Isn’t that what affects each other? Unfortunately, due to the sudden drop in the Nasdaq over the last few days, the SL had to take action. That’s why the last few days lost in long mode. I personally help myself with this by splitting the risk over several systems. In that case I use half a position in TF M3 and a half position in TF M1. M1 made a profit from the faster trailing stop, M3 a loss.

    #182741

    that sounds weird to me, I think there will be conflicts in the code, I’ll have a closer look at it later.

     

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 97 total)

Create your free account now and post your request to benefit from the help of the community
Register or Login