replacing TP with partial close

Forums ProRealTime English forum ProOrder support replacing TP with partial close

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • #189457

    So I’m thinking of a way to use a 3 stage partial close instead of a single profit target. This is what I have in mind:

    1. Run the TARGET %PROFIT as usual, let’s say it returns a value of 2.5
    2. Disable TP
    3. From an initial position size of 10, use partial close to sell 3 contracts at 2%, 5 at 2.5% and 2 at 2.7 % (or something like that)

     

    This is the code I had intended to use:

     

    This is a variation of a code I have used in the past but it doesn’t work in the way I want it to; optimization of the variables shows no change.

    I realise there’s a problem using abs(CountOfPosition) as it’s not going to give me the original intended disposals of 3, 5, 2 as the CountOfPosition will change with each sale.

    But presumably there is some bigger problem here as well that I don’t get? Or maybe a better method entirely?

    Most grateful for any help 🤔🤔🤔

     

    #189459

    Can’t you describe what your issue is (apart from it not doing what you want it to) ?
    I am not saying that I will have the solution, but I do know that I attempted similar which did not work out (the reason of why could help you).

    The main culprit will be the feature set of PRT which does not support this really.

    You are not saying it, but I would agree with that this comes down to “an approach”; Some stupid theoretical thinking which could help. … I really attempted many of those and only after implementation (a lot of work) I could reason why the idea s*cked in the first place.

    #189472

    Try to graph the condition:

    to know when it happens and if the partial closure is working correctly on the same candle.

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #189479

    Thanks Peter, I dont really have an issue as such, just an intuition that there ‘might’ be an advantage to treating profit target as a general area where it’s a good idea to start getting out … as opposed to a single price.

    Maybe there’s no advantage at all, maybe it just averages out to the same result. But obviously most trades do not reach the target. Some will almost get there, then fall back all the way to the trail.

    I’m hoping that this method might catch a bit more of the MFE

    Then, maybe the inverse could be used in place of SL ??  gradually easing out of a position, instead of focussing your exit on one spot.

    It’s just an idea I’d like to test, but the code is not cooperating and I don’t see why  ???

    #189503

    mystery solved – aint nuthin wrong with the code, only my tired brain had a decimal in the wrong place (*groan*)

    but just for the record, initial tests look as if it can actually yield a better result – worth exploring further…

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #194648

    This hybrid form of exit seems to yield better results

    Can you help with code on how do I use the same concept to exit :

    50% with 1:1 RRR

    25% with 1:2 RRR

    and the rest 25% wit 1:3 RRR

    Thanks in advance

    #194657

    https://www.prorealcode.com/topic/help-please-to-code-a-one-shot-trading-system/

    Notice that your 50, 25, 25 is the same as 50%, 50% of the remainder, plus the rest.

     

    #194694

    Try this one (I made a few tests on DAX, 1h TF:

    3 users thanked author for this post.
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

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