I'd be happy to work on a programming job, but only when somebody can disprove mathematically exactly what I currently believe to be authentic. My view is that MM can not give an edge.
I've posted different XLSs before, similar to the attached, which compute expectancy for every single possible combination of wins and losses over X trades, using different'progressive' MM approaches: martingale, anti-martingale, d'Alembert, Labouchere, Guetting, Oscar's Grind, Fibonacci, flat betting. Assuming a random distribution of wins and losses, it doesn't matter which of these MMs you use: each one redistributes reduction and triumph sizes differently, but delivers a expectancy of zero. In plain English, that means that, everything else being equal, the will be, eventually delivered by all MMs, if exchanged for long enough, and provided that they avoid ruin.
Having said that, there are two provisos:
1. The above assumes that each trade is an event that is independent; which each of the 64 possible outcomes is likely. If there's some amount of correlation between trade results (e.g. a triumph is much more inclined than 50/50 to be followed by another triumph; or a reduction is much more inclined than 50/50 to be followed by a win), then this is no longer correct. But the win/loss patterns rely on the trading system (entries/exits), and I'd need to view formal statistical evidence.
2. By putting higher position sizes on winning trades, an advantage can be created or enhanced. But this presupposes that you know beforehand that trades are more likely to be winners, more compared to many others. (For instance, if installation A delivers a greater expectancy/profit factor than installation B, then you'd be justified in risking longer on position A). But again, this depends on the trading system, and I'd need to see evidence. Plus it means that B and A would need to be demonstrated expectancy setups, to justify trading them. To put it differently, you need an edge to begin with: ch-22.
Simply raising position size to recoup recent losses doesn't have mathematical basis, because market behaviour and probabilities aren't likely to changeout of empathy for just one retail trader's P/L. Therefore, if you're likely to typical down your losing trades, you require statistical evidence that price is much more prone than 50/50 to revert into an average, i.e. that each step on your'grid' is far more likely to succeed compared to the preceding one, to justify a rise in position dimensions, that is commensurate with the improved likelihood. To put it differently, the same logic as in stage 2. And assuming you would like to avoid irretrievable drawdown, then you also should factor in a means of handling risk in a potential'worst case' situation (the topic of my previous posts).
David
https://www.cliqforex.com/attachment...1849897175.xls