I created a channel

The price touched

I examined the past

And ACE finally

BUY
SELL
do nothing

started thinking about

Once you get this far

what to think next was naturally decided

how to reduce losses

Not how to win, but how not to lose first

When creating an EA

I inevitably think

I want to make it safer

I want to reduce bigger losses

I want to avoid more dangerous situations

Then

If it seems dangerous, just stop

If you’ve held it too long, cut it

If the drawdown grows, run away

If it breaks in the opposite direction, retreat

The more I thought

the defense ideas kept increasing

Add defense, you become stronger

At first, I seriously believed that

one defense is not enough

two defenses are not enough

three defenses are not enough

four defenses

If you can stop many dangerous moments

your performance should improve by that amount

It felt very natural

In reality

When looking at charts with big losses

afterward

“I could have stopped here”

“I could have cut here”

“I shouldn’t have entered here”

There are countless places you can find

Therefore

But the numbers didn’t improve

However

Each time I added a defense

it didn’t turn out as I expected

The big losses decreased

But

profits also decreased

I reduced the number of positions

But

even the positions that later rose sharply disappeared

I forced them to exit early

But

I ended up cutting positions that later would have returned to profitability

Although I was protecting them

the final results weakened

This happened many times

The danger of trying to erase this loss

Backtests show

there are trades that stand out

days of drawdown

large negatives

aren’t closed for a long time

a position that feels uncomfortable to watch

when you see trades like this

you

want to erase them

and

then

you create rules to stop those trades

and indeed

the loss disappears

but

the same rule

elsewhere

eliminates positions that could bring future large profits

Holding longer isn’t necessarily bad

In ACE

there are long-term positions

At first

longer-held positions

I thought they were dangerous

Time passes

there is drawdown

there is swap

you should cut after a certain time

But when I tested it

it wasn’t that simple

Among long-held positions

there were some that later rebound greatly

supporting ACE’s overall profit

in other words

holding longer doesn’t mean a bad position

wasn’t the case

Cut because of drawdown

This was the same

if the drawdown exceeds a threshold

deem it dangerous and cut

this also seems reasonable

but in ACE

after a big drawdown, it can take weeks to recover

looking only at the middle

looks like a failure

but if you look at the end

a big profit

backtests show

that future can be seen

but in real trading

that future isn’t visible

that’s why

easy midway exit rules are dangerous

we learned

If it breaks the other way, is it hopeless?

If using a channel

and it breaks in the opposite direction

that position is wrong

I even considered that

I tried a mechanism to retreat on a reverse break

This also

helped with some large losses

but the same problem occurred again

Even if it briefly breaks the opposite direction

it can come back

and become profitable

I would end up cutting those positions

Defense focused only on losses

Around this time

I finally understood

When building defenses

I was

only looking at “losing positions”

how can I erase these losses

how can I avoid this damage

But what we really should look at

is what you lose by adding that defense

and what you lose

was

One defense does two jobs

When you add defense logic

it stops bad positions

but at the same time

it stops good positions

The problem is

which is more numerous

which amount is larger

For example

even if you prevent a loss of 100,000 yen

if that costs you 200,000 yen in profits

the EA becomes weaker

When evaluating defense

you must consider profits you saved as well

you must consider the profits you lost

And I started removing defenses

From here

the development direction changed slightly

Instead of adding defenses

questioning whether it is truly necessary

questioning whether it is truly necessary

a mechanism to cut with time

a mechanism to cut due to drawdown

a mechanism to cut on a reverse break

Even if you’ve already built something

if long-term backtests show it reduces profit

remove it

even if it looks strong

if the numbers get worse

don’t use it

Rather than “adding something,” do “nothing”

This was quite surprising

In EA development,

adding new features makes it seem like it’s evolving

but in ACE

the opposite happened

create a new defense

test it

and

remove it

this cycle

what remained was not “many defenses”

only the defenses that were truly necessary

was

Don’t touch ACE that is winning

From this point

in ACE development

one approach grew stronger

don’t change ACE when it is winning

only when it is wrong

should be kept as small as possible

if you change the way it wins

ACE itself becomes a different thing

this remains a major criterion for improving ACE

Not the strongest defense, but the minimal necessary defense

As Ver.1 neared completion

what we aimed for changed

at first

an EA that minimizes losses as much as possible

but in the end

an EA that avoids fatal damage while not killing large profit positions

became

there is no need to protect everything

no need to erase all losses

you lose sometimes

but

you survive

and

when the market ACE truly excels in comes

you will be able to run solidly

ACE Ver1 is complete

ACE began by creating channels

finding touches

studying the past

considering reversals and breakouts

beginning to enter

having TP and SL

using trailing

and

increasing defenses

and then reducing again

what remained in the end was

ACE Gold EA Ver.1 ‐GENESIS‑

which is

not what was initially imagined

“an EA that stops anything”

was not

instead, the opposite

do not touch more than necessary

that is

the answer reached through long testing

Ver.1 is complete

But

even though it is complete

that does not mean it will never change

Once real trading starts

things not visible in backtests may appear

in a long market, new questions will arise

And now

ACE is

moving to the next stage

Next time

“Re-sculpting the already finished ACE”

Without breaking Ver.1

without touching the winning parts

only looking for the wrong parts