Discuss Forex-MegaDroid.com

[Ivan Paulus]

hello,

has anyone been trading MD on thinkforex (new broker) ?

i am comparing ATC with thinkforex and would like to see which one is better
in terms of low spread & more MD trades generated

thanks all

 

[Ivan Paulus]

When Recovery Mode works it produces a very smooth equity curve. Yet it is a Martingale strategy, doubling position size after a loss.

When the Recovery Mode doesnt work as anticipated, and the system takes subsequent losses with the position size doubled, it can destroy the equity curve and take a very long time to recover.

It your initial position size is too large, anything over 0.20 on my broker, FXDD, and the system goes into Recovery Mode, opens simultaneous orders, Aggressive Mode, and goes into drawdown. It will force a margin call, closing all positions in loss.

If you trust Megadroid to handle a double position size occasionaly, why not all the time? If Megadroid can handle a 40% position size after taking a loss, it can also handle it any other time as well. With a confirmed and well documented 95% win rate this will produce a much greater profit over time, especialy during those times when Recovery Mode doesnt work that well.

Aggressive Mode allows the system to open a trade with a higher profit target when the range supports it, it also allows the system to open two orders at once. This doubles up on the risk, and can produce big losses when the system takes double losses with Recovery Mode active.

There is a way around this. If you leave Aggressive Mode on and also turn on the NFA Mode it will be able to use the larger profit target when the range supports it, but will only be able to open one trade at a time. Combine this with a maxed out position size and no Recovery Mode and test this on your system. I show a much higher profit this way when I run backtests, and I've changed my live account to support this.

hello ken,
if Aggressive mode on, NFA mode TRUE, Recovery FALSE, as you mentioned
i find that the profit is a lot lower compared with aggressive ON, NFA False, Recovery True
do you find the profit is lower ?

you said you tested it shows a much higher profit that way
i am just making sure i did it correctly

thanks ken, much appreciated

 

[Dirk58]

about backtesting

MD - from PT:

Please keep in mind, that a backtest of systems aka MD with MT4 and standard history data is useless!

Here is why:

MT4 data is supplied directly from the Metaquotes website with 2 problems:

-data from 7th may til 10t July are missing

-the data is in M1 format only and not in form of tick data. That results in the backtester not knowing whether the candle moved up/down only , or whether there was a multiway movement in the candle. This is no problem with systems trading for 20+ TP`s, but MD tries to capture very small moves and therefore one must have tick data to verify its profitability.
You can get tick data into MT4 from various free sources, but the conversion is rather unpleasant to say the least.

-MD is also very sensitive on the spread of the MT4 one uses. Run a backtest on a 2 pip broker vs a 0.5 pip broker and you see a hughe difference.

Hope that helps you guys with your decisions.

PT

 

[Ken Long]

The data from May to July is not missing. That is a personal computer error that has happened to me many times on different time periods during backtesting and downloading data. Generally it comes back after a weekend, but occaisionaly I've had to reload a new platform. This is why I only backtest on my demo accounts and dont mess with the live accounts.

I minute data is fine for most purposes. Its not perfect, but it gives you a fairly accurate idea. All we really want to do is see the differences between optimizations. And yes, anytime we're trying to capture 10-15 pips profit out of the nighttime range, a 0.5-2 pip difference in the spread is incredible. However between my demo testing on FXCM 2.5 pip spread, FXDD 2 pip spread, and ATC 0.8 pip spread with a 0.8 pip commision, I dont see that much difference on a day to day basis. On backtests it does show a difference, and overall I prefer FXDD of these three because the spread is very consistant, on FXCM and ATC the spread varries and changes a lot, which can cause entry and exit problems that wont show up in backtesting. and I dont like ATC's commision structure when half of our trades close at breakeven (+1 pip). If it was still available in the US I would consider FxPro for the best spreads.

Ivan, perhaps it depends on what broker and time period your doing your testing on. Please test thoroughly and make your own decisions. And yes, I had, Aggressive mode TRUE, NFA mode TRUE, Recovery mode FALSE. This prevented it from opening multiple orders simultaneously, or doubling position size, and allowed me to run a maximum position size all the time. If you run Aggressive ON, NFA False, Recovery True, you need to run a much smaller position size to prevent a margin call. Remember this means the system can both double the position size and open 2 orders simultaneously, thereby quadrupling your risk. These Martingale style strategies can work fine, untill the one time they dont and they wipe out your entire account.

This new platform is something created by the FAP-T team (if I'm correct), intending to compete with MT4 and host Forex Bulletproof, their new EA designed to be ultra safe, and conservative. There were a few Beta testers there who impressed me, but this is all marketing copy, and these people were bribed, hired, persuaded to do this testing because of their prominent names in the Forex industry. Unfortunately we're already stating to see all the usual affiliate hacks promoting this system. Is it really as good as they say? Or is it just more marketing and sales hype, at a likely higher price without the easy refund? I would wait at least a year on both their platform and their EA, and let some other suckers do the testing. Just consider the sources this information comes from, the style and effort put into the marketing scheme, the intense build up that is coming, the number of affiliate hacks already piling on to this sales and marketing pitch. The whole thing is too well polished, coming from the biggest and most successful Forex marketers, telling people exactly what they want to hear right now. Its all just a little too perfect, it reeks of it.

 

[Dirk58]

thanks Ken

ya, you were right, I meant the new BP. I thought because the FapTurbo guys developed it it should be at least as good as MD.... well, let´s wait and see

 

[Dirk58]

so

because of having an client showing him Forex Trading early next month and of course by using MD I have now changed back to v1.3 with safe settings for September using aggressive=false and recovery mode=false, risk level 0.1.
Because I only can introduce the new version to this guy (head of managing others money??? - assets manager?) and he will give this a try for about three months. So if he will make money with MD I´m in because he has lot´s of clients for introducing makin money by this. So damn bad that they changed MD by now but perhaps he will proceed well.
So would be nice to have some statements about v1.3 from others with perhaps different settings.......

 

[michaelwen]

HI, Dirk. wish you are good luck with this new opportunity!!!

 

[Dirk58]

thank you

Michael. Ya, is a really big one for me because of these guys big clients list.
So hopefuly v1.3 is doin well......
would be nice to hear if somone else is running v1.30 with different settings...

always good trading

 

[Dirk58]

question to

Ken:
so we learned that using lotsize instead of risklevel should be the better way.....

My client will use an 1000 Euros account for testing, so let say he will allow 10% risk, should this be around 0.7 of lotsize? I get for this the max. 150pips (only aggressive using this high one?) MD sometimes uses for S/L...... I´m only using account size for this because of easy and understandable explaining to him

 

[Ken Long]

Fixed lot size is not necessarily better than a percentage risk setting, just different. If its a dedicated MD account, only trading 1 position at a time this would work fine, but if it trades other EA's, or any form of multiple positions at the same time, using a percentage system will automaticaly adjust your position size to the margin available with less chance of over leveraging and getting a margin call.

I dont think I would go promoting MD to a money manager to use on other peoples money. If he's any kind of money manager he should be doing this work himself, not looking at $97 robots. But it may go well. MD is capable enough.

Question? How do you figure a 0.7 lot size on a 1000 euro account? Thats about 70% of the account, not considering any currency conversions. Perhaps you mean 0.07 lot size, that would be closer to 10% of the account. Try 1 mini lot, 0.1, that is likely as low as he can go. Most often the risk is about 50 pips, though 150 pips is possible, and Conservative setting uses the larger stop more often, that is how they figure conservative, less chance of being stoped out. So you would be risking from 5-15% per trade. A bit high for a money manager trading with someone elses money. These people are hopefully a bit more risk adverse than this, and competant enough to do their own work.