Haasonline Simple Trade Bot For BTCe and Bitstamp[Main topic]

[silverston]

@silverston:
If you connect to the exchange then its much more likely fee percentages will come out properly. 

Making very, very tiny losses if you trade pure on the fee costs is not unknown. They can happen because of 2 reasons. First because of the used market prices on trading itself and secondly due rounding problems. The last one is the most known cause.

You can avoid this from happening, just by using the price percentage change -insurance and configure this at 0.21% for example.

But in general, with these numbers you have posted, i really would advice you to add 1 or 2 trade indicators.

 
Indicators

Aroon Indicator (Aroon-up back 25, Aroon-down back 25) (BTCe LtcBtc 2min)   
MACD-Histogram Indicator (Trend type: EMA, Short 12, Long 26, Signal 12 MA Cross-over) (BTCe LtcBtc 10min)

If I use price percentage change -insurance and configure at 2% +and- . for example I buy at 0.028. Insurance not allow sell lower than 0.02856 and if price reach this level, bot sell. and conversely, insurance not allow buy higher than 0.028 if price goes down. is it correct?

[Stephan224]

@silverston:
If you really want to see the insurances at work (test them) then the best thing that you could do is setup a trade-bot with the new BlindIndicator and the Insurance that you can to test. This will show exactly how they will behave in real usage.

@all:
I have detected a minor issue with updating the fee percentages. Therefore new version has been released. Chances are small this issue will show itself, but still i recommend to get this update.

[cpusher]

0992 is a big improvement for me, much less memory usage so i can do a lot of backtesting/tuning thanks for this!

just updated to 0993, and 1 configured bot is missing now  (2014-29-03 10:24:57.398   |ERROR|   There is an error in XML document (79, 38).)

from last 12 hours i have the following issues:

on CEX.io i started with only btc available in my wallet with only HTS trading:
I had 4 bots running  (all the available btc pairs)with a static amount. for nmc i now have 3x trade NMC amount in wallet, for ghs i have 2x trade amount in wallet. and had to cancel 5x buy order ( 5x trade amount) and 2x sell order (2x trade amount) that went out of control. (I did not used the new timeout insurance) Something is seriously wrong here 
(already experience same behaviour on cryptsy a while ago with HTS) 

on cryptsy i had fee overcome active with a small loss (this is fixed with 0993?)

deactivating bots until 0994...

[silverston]

@Stephan
I just wanna say Overcome fee insurance NOT working in 0.9.9.2

[solarion]

Thanks Stephan, haven't had a parsing error since updating to 0.9.9.2.

[cpusher]

@Stephan
I just wanna say Overcome fee insurance NOT working in 0.9.9.2

Have you tried 0.9.9.3?

[Hpotsirc]

With the new version i still have problems with bitstamp. The bot executes the orders and eventually tells me they were filled and changes the coin position but my wallet amount doesn't change at all. When i log in to Bitstamp i see that no order was received at all. At least the message that my trade amount exceeds my wallet amount is gone.

I have also got some problems with the backtesting function. It seems to give me completely random results. I let the backtest run, clear my statistics, switch back the coin position to its original state, change no settings at all, let the backtest run again and get completely different results. The results range from nice profits to huge losses so i really can't trust any of these results at the moment.

Another problem is with the auto setup of indicators: For some indicators this works, for example MACD. I add the last x prices and press auto setup, the graph and the tuning of the indicator changes. For others, e.g. Aroon the graph does change once i press auto setup but the indicator settings won't so i can't really comprehend what the auto setup actually did.

[silverston]

in 0.9.9.3 I see big cpu usage in comparison with the previous version

[krach]

in 0.9.9.3 I see big cpu usage in comparison with the previous version

maybe try to change the buffer size in the server settings.

[Stephan224]

0992 is a big improvement for me, much less memory usage so i can do a lot of backtesting/tuning thanks for this!

just updated to 0993, and 1 configured bot is missing now  (2014-29-03 10:24:57.398   |ERROR|   There is an error in XML document (79, 38).)

from last 12 hours i have the following issues:

on CEX.io i started with only btc available in my wallet with only HTS trading:
I had 4 bots running  (all the available btc pairs)with a static amount. for nmc i now have 3x trade NMC amount in wallet, for ghs i have 2x trade amount in wallet. and had to cancel 5x buy order ( 5x trade amount) and 2x sell order (2x trade amount) that went out of control. (I did not used the new timeout insurance) Something is seriously wrong here 
(already experience same behaviour on cryptsy a while ago with HTS) 

on cryptsy i had fee overcome active with a small loss (this is fixed with 0993?)

deactivating bots until 0994...

I am not really sure what has happened to your trade-bot. We did make some changes to the save system and its behind automated tests to. I did not expect to see anymore trade-bots that gets lost. (please note, inside your TradeBots -folder there is almost always a backup of your trade-bot in case you lost it. You only have to rename it back to .XML to restore the trade-bot.

At the current moment we are not (yet) planning version 0.9.9.4. The current version is looking to be working smoothly for now (except Hpotsirc below here, but that will be solved). So we already started to continue development on the new exchanges and features over here.

For Cex.IO i have 2 good recommendations. First of all try to trade with low amounts like 1 or 2 coins per bot. Secondly i can recommend to use the CancelOrder and set it to 3 minutes (or 4minutes). By default we are at 10minutes and this is to long for Cex.IO at the moment.

With these recommendations is it still not fully sure if the orders get trough, but it gets you really close. I have the same issue here and this is the solution as far as i have seen.

Version 0.9.9.3 has a solid feeovercome insurance. You can even test it yourself, it just a matter of setting up a trade-bot with the BlindSignal indicator and the insurance that you want to test. Then run a backtest and see what happens. (its for 99.9% sure that you see earnings/profits with this test setup, but still beware of the BlindSignal indicator, it does not give momentum. It only gives a blind signal to trade, so you are trading on the fee alone with this setup.)

With the new version i still have problems with bitstamp. The bot executes the orders and eventually tells me they were filled and changes the coin position but my wallet amount doesn't change at all. When i log in to Bitstamp i see that no order was received at all. At least the message that my trade amount exceeds my wallet amount is gone.

I have also got some problems with the backtesting function. It seems to give me completely random results. I let the backtest run, clear my statistics, switch back the coin position to its original state, change no settings at all, let the backtest run again and get completely different results. The results range from nice profits to huge losses so i really can't trust any of these results at the moment.

Another problem is with the auto setup of indicators: For some indicators this works, for example MACD. I add the last x prices and press auto setup, the graph and the tuning of the indicator changes. For others, e.g. Aroon the graph does change once i press auto setup but the indicator settings won't so i can't really comprehend what the auto setup actually did.

Can you please contact me per PM or support ticket about bitstamp? I would like to see why this does not work or whats happening at your computer.

About the backtest... there are 2 reasons why you might see different results. First of all the start position of the coins (you saw this one already) and secondly the last record buy and sell prices. However, if you press Clear, Backtest and Clear again then the next backtest should show exactly the same results. This output must the equal.

About the auto tuning... this technology works very well, but its not said this technology is prefect. What the auto-tune does is trying to make the indicator active so they become responsive within 24-hours. Once there is a profitable buy and sell signal the tuning itself stops. However, sometimes this is just not possible. Maybe the market does not move enough or the settings of the indicators would become invalid. I that situation the auto-tune fails.

Just to tell... the auto-tune as it is right now works well, but we are still only at 33% of what is possible. We still have a few tricks to make this tuning even better that it is right now.

in 0.9.9.3 I see big cpu usage in comparison with the previous version

maybe try to change the buffer size in the server settings.

It is possible to see a little higher CPU usage if you compare version 0.9.9.2 and 0.9.9.3. If just the fee that has been read/verified each time. But this difference is very, very small. I did not even register it in the tests. (i need to say i have not updated my Atom here yet)

If you have performance problems then i recommend to:
- Reduce the memory usage (see server settings)
- Reduce the cache buffer size (see server settings)
- Disable the exchanges that you are not using (see server settings)

But i do not expect this would be needed at all, unless your memory is very limited or unless you want to reduce internet bandwidth.

[silverston]

in 0.9.9.3 I see big cpu usage in comparison with the previous version

maybe try to change the buffer size in the server settings.

increased the size of the memory buffer - see what will happen next.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and again - order not filled, but order still open at exchange

Code:

30.03.2014 16:21:05 The current trade-amount (1,0) exceeds the current availible wallet-amount (0,01056428).
30.03.2014 16:19:49 The current trade-amount (1,0) exceeds the current availible wallet-amount (0,01057183).
30.03.2014 16:19:49 1,0 coins sold for a price of 0,0280 and bought before for 0,0278 making total profit of 0,00020
30.03.2014 16:18:35 There are open orders.
30.03.2014 16:18:35 Waiting for exchange to fill order...
30.03.2014 16:17:20 Insurances agree on Sell command

[Stephan224]

Filling orders is of course done at the exchange itself. I think in your order was filled for a part. This gives the software the idea the order is done and there you go.

[silverston]

Filling orders is of course done at the exchange itself. I think in your order was filled for a part. This gives the software the idea the order is done and there you go.

order was filled after hour in new uptrend. why software dont close order after 10min? order was filled 0%.

[Stephan224]

I have my doubts thats this is true. The log you posted showed the order was filled. This can only be if the order was not found anymore at the open order list.

The software sends out a cancel on the open order if it is still open after 10 minutes. This procedure only can fail is the order was filled for a part or if you are resetting the signals by pressing clear statistics.

[silverston]

I have my doubts thats this is true. The log you posted showed the order was filled. This can only be if the order was not found anymore at the open order list.

The software sends out a cancel on the open order if it is still open after 10 minutes. This procedure only can fail is the order was filled for a part or if you are resetting the signals by pressing clear statistics.

I did not do anything and say that the order was executed on 0%
so I write, this is strange

[cpusher]

Stephan,

could you please add an insurance "switch coin position only after x% filled" (check with actual wallet and open orders)

Today i switched coin position with only 0,0000166% filled of the trade amount. i had cancel order insurance after 2 minutes, but it was filled for only 0,0000166% , the position was switched and the order was not canceled. (i was hoping it was canceled and after 2 minutes a new order was placed for a new price)

or other ways to deal with this like preventing to make buy/sell walls like spreading the trade.


this is also important to protect your investments with the droploss safeties. if it only sells a small part and hts thinks it's done(order not 100% filled), we're screwed !


hope you understand the importance and so you can improve this situation as soon as possible.

[silverston]

@Stephan

Safeties
 Dynamic adjusted roof-out safety and Dynamic adjusted roof-in safety show same charts. Roof-in price same as Roof-out price.

[Hpotsirc]

With the new version i still have problems with bitstamp. The bot executes the orders and eventually tells me they were filled and changes the coin position but my wallet amount doesn't change at all. When i log in to Bitstamp i see that no order was received at all. At least the message that my trade amount exceeds my wallet amount is gone.

This problem was solved for me by Stephan. So i got to say: Thank you very much for the great support 
Anyway i just wanted to let you guys know that the problem was that my trade amount was to small for the API to process it even though amounts that small can be traded manually at Bitstamp. So if you have a similar problem you might want to increase your trade amount.

[Stephan224]

@cpusher:
We are trying to make it work using the spread orders.

BTW The coming targets/features are also listed to on the test-version page. This information is not posted here because i would like to avoid disappointment if a new feature fails.

@silverston:
This is by design. The roof-out sells the coins above the threshold and the roof-in buys the coins above the threshold. So they do different things and they should not be used at once.

@Hpotsirc:
Thanks for getting back to it and your advice to the readers. Its was indeed the trade-amount and it have to be at least a number with 2 decimals at Bitstamp. (for example: x.xx)

[Raptor2213]

I see that you made a new license for more entry-level trials.  It seems unattractive though.  If someone were to want to just try it out, it seems to me that it would be much better if it were 1/10th the cost for only 2 months.  That way someone could play around with it for a minimal investment and see if they like it before paying for a full license.  After all, isn't that the general idea with this low-cost license?

I didn't see a list of supported exchanges on your site, nor a comparison of versions.  Could this be added to help us make a more informed purchase decision?