Posts made by TipsyWisdom

@jstap said in Draw Lines @ axis:

You can use this,
ChartXYToTimePrice(
long chart_id, // Chart ID
int x, // The X coordinate on the chart
int y, // The Y coordinate on the chart
int& sub_window, // The number of the subwindow
datetime& time, // Time on the chart
double& price // Price on the chart
);
in custom code, save into a variable, redraw line using variable, X & Y will stay the same but lines should move with time/price.

almost would work, but I want to time as one of the axis

@roar said in Draw Lines @ axis:

So you want a fixed Y point but moving X coordinate? Or both fixed - then you could use "rectangle label" object.

yea, for X coordinates, I would like to use my time stamp since I seek time first, but for the Y coordinate, I'd like to the bars of color to just to displayed visually at the top of the chart as high as I can get them.

the colored lines @ the top

like these. but these are price anchored. I want Y axis for where to put the lines, not price.

@l-andorrà pointed out once that he removes all of the rules from global options

i often get the pip size thing. I wish i could help but I dont have a clue brother.

My bot will give me errors like that, and then continue to trade as normal with no problems on the next trade. All my positions are typically calculated based on stoploss or some other means, so it doesnt make sense to me that 1% of whatever was given for input, would result in some negative or very large untradeable number of lots, randomly. The worst part is that it is not consistent enough to troubleshoot.

I am attempting to draw lines on the chart based X and Y coordinates, in an attempt to put trend lines on my chart, to represent visual zones of time. I dont want to use price points because if the price point moves off screen, I want the lines to follow the time. Only way I can see that happening, is by constantly updating the point that they are printed on the X and Y axis, but I dont understand how to do it.

@roar said in What am I missing with ENUM variables for MT5?:

The difference between = and == is actually very very important (I confuse them often myself lol).

= sets the variable value
== compares two variables together, returning True if they match, False if they dont match

edit: hmm, dont know why I ended up answering to 2 year old thread

hmm food for thought, thanks Roar

i recently did a thread titled backtesting, lets talk about it....it includes melchetts link as I like to use that guy for a lot of knowledge too...but further conversation was necessary.

hands of the user is probably a good default answer. lol

All depends on EA logic first and foremost.

this is good stuff gents, probably the fineer details of ea verification that really matter and no effort or thought goes into it

@roar said in Backtesting, lets talk about it!:

@seb-0 no, I meant fixed stops are probably just as problematic on "open prices" modelling, but if you dont use fixed stops and instead do every entry and exit action once per bar, then you can use the rough modelling without noticeable difference.

I find it more my style to quickly test a lot of EA iterations on rough data, rather than focusing on 100% tick data at the cost of much slower development. Can't do any HFT strategies using this approach, naturally.

ah ok, accounting for what has been said so far, I could also put all closing conditions, under a once per minute and it would also solve all this?

something like that.

or this

?

Nah, OnTrade.

Id imagine in that tab you can use a pass, connected to a modify variables function, that then defines the value of the variables as at the value of the current TP in price, then do a drawline function, that will draw a line at the new defined variable.

At least that makes sense to me...let me see if I can try to do it. Perhaps some feature is missing that I am not thinking of

cumulative profit is a single blue block, no? check unrealized profit - mode pips

@hello123starb said in HELP NEEDED // Starting to get fed up with FXDREEMA:

Ok so FXDREEMA is really starting to get on my nerves.

I made a post earlier that i had to search and fix myself however i cannot delete it so please ignore.

HOWEVER. After i have fixed it i have hit yet another issue.

My algo is listening to the ''modify stops'' for my buys (if RSI goes above 70 = move stops to lowest candle price 10) and it completes it fine.

However, when i put ''modify stops'' for sells (If RSI goes below 30 = move stops to highest candle price 10) the algo just completely ignores it and holds them until SL is hit (Sl set when order is opened, not the SL determined by the new ''modify stops'')

The code is so easy to read that it makes 0 sense to me as to why fxdreema isnt listening to that block.
It can do it with the Buys, So why not the sells?

please help. Just bought a new sub of this platform and with no one to help it renders it a pretty pointless transaction.

As you can see ''if price crosses above RSI 70'' = ''modify stops of trades'' works for buys.
The layout is exactly the same yet it ignores the ''modify stops of trades'' for sells.

this is a DIY platform of a DIY community. Many here are experts who VOLUNTEER their free time to reply to everyone. DIY isn't for everyone, so either you need more time to learn, or money. Hire someone else to do it in full and then you can learn. Hell, I think a few people here will teach you one on one!

simple EA's still need detailed logic for understanding...but you should also start the project and make an attempt. Otherwise, people here are available for hire if you just wish to instruct.

heres my resistance

show me yours now.

@seb-0 said in Backtesting, lets talk about it!:

@TipsyWisdom
Do you use stop levels ? They induce the holy grail tester inaccuracy when the price is not in ticks modelling.
Every ticks modeling seems to model the price, every tick size change, with a variation equal to the tick size. While real tick modeling, models the price every tick that actually happened, with the change that actually happened(greater or equal to tick size). That explains why the results are different.

wait a minute....are you trolling me or are you being serious? lol...I was pondering this last night and was wondering if you were being serious or not. I mean, its truly terrible advice to say, trade without a stoploss. But you only mean for in terms of calculations correct? Are you saying instead, dont use a predetermined stoploss level and instead use a stoploss line, or other closing conditions...anything but SL works better from a calculation standpoint and modelling as you prescribed?

@TipsyWisdom said in Backtesting, lets talk about it!:

@l-andorrà said in Backtesting, lets talk about it!:

What happens while a candle is in formation is fundamental. Personally I would only focus on working with real tick only. You'll save a lot of time and pain, trust me.

im rereading what you said, and you are saying 2 different things.

candle formation is fundamental. but ticks are not any part of candle formation. this is where I fail to understand why I must have them, I am trying to avoid using them but it seems to give different results no matter what method I use...leading me to believe an all ticks or real ticks test of my candle reliable EA, is not a good way to test because its forcing false data

what I said is fundamentally wrong...interesting.

I think I have some more thought to do with candle control...because I rely on Candle 0 high to be utilized, and that will significantly affect using 1m VS real ticks because it will be out of order.

Thanks for class @l-andorrà haha