Grid bot trailing take profit & other grid functions

[d_yo_r]

Trailing shifts the Grid Bots range up for long deal and down for short deals if the price is moving into the grid’s direction and approaching the border levels of the grid. That way the price would stay inside the grid. I.e., the long grid could start with a range 0 - 100 and end with a range 80 - 180.

If the price is moving against the grid’s direction, we cannot have trailing if we don’t want to close the open deals at the opposite border of the grid at a loss. Instead we had to expand the grid by adding additional levels. Above grid could end with a range 50 - 180.

[aressanch]

@d_yo_r

Trailing shifts the Grid Bots range up for long deal and down for short deals if the price is moving into the grid’s direction and approaching the border levels of the grid. That way the price would stay inside the grid. I.e., the long grid could start with a range 0 - 100 and end with a range 80 - 180.

Still it doesn’t explain why it’s different from what a combo does. You don’t expand the upper grid out of thin air, the bot needs to buy additional base at set intervals to be able to create more sell orders. And that’s what the bot does.

[d_yo_r]

Don’t confuse the words trailing and expanding. As mentioned a long grid can trail up and expand down (and the other way round for short grids).

Trailing up doesn’t require additional funds as the buy orders at the bottom of the grid are cancelled and move up level by level as well as the sell order at the top of the grid.

Expanding down on the other hand requires additional funds as we usually don’t want to close open deals at the top of the grid at a loss.

[aressanch]

@d_yo_r

Trailing up doesn’t require additional funds as the buy orders at the bottom of the grid are cancelled and move up level by level as well as the sell order at the top of the grid.

It does require additional funds, you need to acquire the base that you will use in those extra sell orders in the trailing. You need to buy that base ideally a set % under the top sell, so when you reach the top, you use that extra base to add more grids. So I still don’t see how’s that any different from the combo.

[d_yo_r]

Trailing doesn’t require extra funds. We discussed it at Telegram a little. If you like I add a detailed description of how I think that Grid Bots work here or in an extra topic.

[nkaralis]

You are absolutely correct

[lapijas123]

But what if you are starting with a larger BASE fund bag and want to continue selling as the price goes up? Also as mentioned before, one could further micromanage the trailing logic to HOLD the bags until new price discovery met. Then the grid continues/reactivates from the new level thus multiplying your profits exponentially from traditional grids.

[d_yo_r]

@aressanch. In your article How Combo Bots Replace Grid Trailing Up and Trailing Down you explain yourself “[h]ow Trailing Up Works in Grid Bots”

Here’s a simple breakdown of how it typically works:

• When the market price climbs two grid levels beyond the bot’s highest set price, the bot cancels the lowest buy order and repositions it one step above the bot’s peak price.
• As the market ascends further, it consistently cancels and re-establishes the bottom-most buy orders just over the top price threshold, following the upward trend.
• This pattern constantly shifts the grid up, expecting that as the price stops the upward movement, it will fall back inside the grid’s range.

From that it should be clear, why the grid doesn’t require extra funds for that.

And you also correctly describe “[h]ow Trailing Down Works in Grid Bots” even though I would prefer to call it expanding down here. Your description is correct again and also remarks the requirement of extra funds.

Regarding the Pros and Cons I would also differ since both trailing and expanding have different ones.

[d_yo_r]

@aressanch

What would trailing in a traditional grid bot allow you to accomplish that you cannot currently do with a combo bot?

To at first finally answer your question. Probably trailing and expanding for Grid Bots don’t add anything that cannot be achieved with the Combo Bot. On the other hand, because the Grid Bot is a lot easier to configure, some users still might prefer those.

With my Generalized Trading Bots at hand we probably even could replace Combo, Trading and Grid Bots, which wouldn’t be that surprising. But there’s also a benefit of simpler bots.

After reading the above mentioned article How Combo Bots Replace Grid Trailing Up and Trailing Down, let me try to compare the regular grid and the combo bot.

Base setup

Grid Bot

• Starts at the exact configured level

• Uses the configure levels. Those are a wait and a configurable number of buy and sell levels. The smallest setup could look like 2 grid levels positioned like one of those

  B-2 B-1 W

  (I.e., there hasn’t to be sell levels above the current price.)

  B-1 W(1) S1

  

  [W(1)|W(1-2)] S1 S2

  (I.e., there hasn’t to be buy levels below the current price.)

  I don’t know whether the wait position only buys for S1 or also S2 and thus is more like W(1-2).

• Without trailing and/or expanding the grid will stay in its position

• Every Grid Bot works as a single deal

Combo Bot

• Starts a configured set of connected Grid Bots per deal not at an exactly configured price but now based on a start condition

• In the easiest case it creates a regular Grid Bot on the price levels up from the current price. From my understanding it looks like that

  B-1 W(1) S1

  

  (Does anybody know what the gray line is about?)

• Their has to be at least 1 DCA step below the current price. If we set Active Minigrid Count = 0 that grid isn’t active and if we choose the deviation big enough it never will be. Like that we could also set-up the above variants of the Grid Bot.

So in the base setup the main difference is that the Combo Bot is able to start deals according to the start condition. And that the Combo Bot requires a DCA step somewhere.

With more levels

Grid Bot

B-4 B-3 B-2 B-1 W

B-3 B-2 B-1 W(1) S1

B-2 B-1 [W(1)|W(1-2)] S1 S2

B-1 [W(1)|...|W(1-3)] S1 S2 S3

[W(1)|...|W(1-4)] S1 S2 S3 S4

If we ignore the Take Profit and Stop Loss settings we already have reached the end of what is possible with Grid Bots.

If we wanted to have Grid Bots at other levels, we always have to configure them manually. At least we can duplicate and update the setting of the existing bot (is there bulk editing if we create several of those bots which only differ where they start?)

Combo Bot

B-4 B-3 B-2 B-1 W

B-3 B-2 B-1 W(1) S1

B-2 B-1 [W(1)|W(1-2)] S1 S2

This could be configured like that by using 1 DCA order with Active Minigrid enabled

or like that by using 1 DCA order with Active Minigrid disabled

or like that by using 2 DCA orders that both only have a single Minigrid level

B-1 [W(1)|...|W(1-3)] S1 S2 S3

[W(1)|...|W(1-4)] S1 S2 S3 S4

With only a two additional grid levels or one or two DCA orders we already have more possibilities to set-up our grid. The smart orders would only add funds after a certain drop and those could also be spaced and scaled as regular DCA orders. That way we can control when the next buy order shall be executed.

As soon as the Combo Bot deal closes or if the start condition allows for consecutive deals, also another Combo Bot deal can start automatically without the additional required work that we would need for Grid Bots.

What I currently don’t understand is how the Combo Bot deal’s DCA orders average down? Because the profits of the lower grid levels possibly offset the losses of the upper levels at some time and allow the Combo Bot deal to reach its configured take profit earlier? Or if there’s no configured take profit, do they instead lower the upmost grid level by that instead?

[aressanch]

We have hijacked the main subject as the OP meant trailing on deal value. The question of trailing up for grid bots was discussed here for example Trailing UP feature for Combo and Grid bots

I described the trailing up in the article you mentioned by removing one buy order from the bottom and placing it at the top, when the price already crossed it on the way up (so it can be placed below as a new buy order). Because that extra base was not bought before reaching the top, now you have to wait until the price is higher to keep placing buy orders under. On the other hand, the combo bot would have been profiting because it already bought the necessary base and the sell orders were placed beforehand.

So as I see this, that way of trailing up is not any better than the combo, and I can’t think of any scenario where it would provide significant advantage.

[d_yo_r]

Yes, we hijacked the original topic about trailing take profit. At least, it’s title also mentions other grid functions. So trailing and expanding grids maybe still fit from the title. Of course, to vote and later work on those feature requests it would be better to have smaller more manageable ones. So could you maybe move/split the messages about trailing and expanding grid to a new feature request? I still think that it would be helpful to have those on Grid Bots as well, because they are easier to configure and may be a good start for beginners.

[d_yo_r]

@aressanch

Because that extra base was not bought before reaching the top, now you have to wait until the price is higher to keep placing buy orders under.

I think I still don’t understand when grid and combo bots buy and sell? From my current understanding I would expect grid bot deals and mini grid deals to buy and sell similarly per level if the price moves inside the grid. Difference (?) while the grid bot only buys the assets for the next sell level, the Combo Bot main levels initially buy all assets for the mini grid at the Combo main levels and partial take profit on those if the grid moves to the other end of the grid or buy and sell per grid level if the price moves up and down inside the grid.

Is the grid only trailing up if it touches the upper boundary? Why not as soon as the number of configured grid levels above the wait position decreases by one? If we start with the following configuration, why isn’t it like shown in the following?

Start long grid:

• B-2 B-1 W(1) S1 S2

Trailing up from start:

• B-1 B0 W(2) S2 S3

• B0 B1 W(3) S3 S4

Expanding down from start:

• B-3 B-2 W(0...1) S0 S1

• B-4 B-3 W(-1...1) S-1 S0 (S1)