Sig cent Martin diskuse

I have tried more than 8 times with two different machines. I can not place order through regnow.
ss

My only suggestion would to be to get in contact with regnow support
https://www.mycommerce.com/MyCommerce_ContactUs.aspx

which time frame please TF=1H?

correct.. h1 on only GU

Hi, Jayman007
Do you use masshedge for this account?
ss

Jayman, please, can you tell your full settings?
For you GU is the best pair for FH?
Thanks !

drsong123 posted:
Hi, Jayman007
Do you use masshedge for this account?
ss

I do not use the masshedge feature.

I think it's still buggy and so far I am happy with the settings I run on this account.

I might start up another account and test the masshedge feature at a later date.

Hi, Jayman007.
According to FH ver 2.5, masshedge is still a working progress. What happens to your account, largest realized loss since account opening?

Jayman007, I have been going through many of your trade history and it does appear that you have any losing days, that is remarkable indeed for a Martingale strategy. Is this the 2.4 or 2.5 version that you are running??

 You have said here that you should have a minimum account balance of $3k per .02 lots, how ever you have run this EA on a $3k balance till Feb 15/2012 until you actually changes the lot size from .1 to 1.0 lots. So the .1 lots that you ran for almost 3 months (even though you did add more funds) is not .02, and .1 lots it actually 5 times more, so whats your answer here?? Were you experimenting at first or what??

 Your large so called DD was because of one bad day on July 27/2012, but it seems that even at .1 lots the DD was very reasonable to say the least. Obviously the DD can be controlled to a large extent by setting the correct lot size. This seems to be a very unique Martingale logic because even though the price may be moving up for example, the EA is also buying as well as selling to hedge many of the positions which makes it a winner in the long run.

When I very first started the account I started with $30 (3000 cents). But on lf the smallest lot size for cent is .1 so that is what I put. I didn't realize that I was really needing a balance of $150 to support that risk. It ran and made huge gains as you can see in the 1st month stats and when I realized I added funds to bring it to $150. Then a few months back I took the account to $1500 and increased the lot size according to the formula.

If you hit balance on the chart you can clearly see what balance I keep the account at. Till Feb 15th I had balance of 150usd (15000 cents), That was running at .1 then I increased the balance by factor of 10 to $1500 and I also did the same with the lot size.

Thats great but my point is that even at .1 which we will say is 5 times more than what it should be the EA managed to keep the DD pretty reasonable which is good to know. So even though you added more funds numerous times it was just as though it was still a $3k account balance util the lot size was increase to 1.0 lots.

  In 9 months of trading the EA only hit a large DD for 1-2 days in July which is good to know because we absolutely had every trading condition possible during the course of 9 months.

It was only at the 3000 cent level for a few weeks tops .just at the beginning. I was lucky the market was rather calm when I did that

And the account was brought from $30 to $150 and then to $1500

Yes I know that but my point is that it didn't matter how much money you threw at the account because you were still trading it at .1 lots like it was a $3k account until Feb 16/2012, and you had already made about $20k in profit by the time you actually increased the lot size to 1.0 lots. So under favourable market conditions you don't need .02 per $3k which is a very safe R:R.

pipsquick posted:
Yes I know that but my point is that it didn't matter how much money you threw at the account because you were still trading it at .1 lots like it was a $3k account until Feb 16/2012, and you had already made about $20k in profit by the time you actually increased the lot size to 1.0 lots. So under favourable market conditions you don't need .02 per $3k which is a very safe R:R.

I think you are confused. The account was not being traded like a 3k account till feb/2012. It was started to trade like a 15000 account but I had only 3000 in there. I'm sure that would not have lasted long. In a matter of weeks I increased the balance to the risk level I was meant to be trading.

The risk is determined by the ratio of the starting lot size and the account equity. When I was trading the first few weeks at the .1 lot size and the 3000 equity I was way over leveraged and got lucky the account didn't explode. I then increased the equity to match the risk level I was looking for with the min lot size of .1. That is the risk I give in the formula .02 per 3k.

Your take that 'So under favourable market conditions you don't need .02 per $3k which is a very safe R:R.' is wrong.

also..'you had already made about $20k in profit by the time you actually increased the lot size to 1.0 lots' is wrong.

Just to be clear.. .02 per 3k is very aggressive. This would be the VERY maximum I would ever trade this ea using real money and only with a min of 500 leverage. Also I would only do this with a plan in place to remove all profits on a regular basis. These setting are so aggressive that I am expecting the account to blow eventually and will be happy that all my profits are made and safe from being lost.

I didn't realize that .02 lots was very aggressive so .01 lots would be even safer then. Is this the 2.4 or the newer 2.5 version that you are currently running here??

pipsquick posted:
I didn't realize that .02 lots was very aggressive so .01 lots would be even safer then. Is this the 2.4 or the newer 2.5 version that you are currently running here??

.02 per 3k is highly aggressive. Many other won't go higher than .01 per 5k or 10k. The starting lot size is just one variable that determined how the ea will trade. All of these variables must be looked at as a whole before determining the risk level.

I run 2.4 that I have modified with the changes outlined a few pages back. There is a bug in the code that the developers never fixed even in ver 2.5

Also, ver 2.5 doesn't trade any different than 2.4. the changes were more visual.

is 2.3 going to do the job as well too?

I honestly can't remember what changed from 2.3 to 2.4. I was running 2.3 for long time on this account without any issues.