Alchemy of daily 200MA × RSI contrarian strength, honestly explaining the reason I stacked defense
Serial: Yoko and Kenji's GOLD EA Mastery Notebook Part 6
Hello, this is Yoko.
Before the main topic, a report. The official forward for Alchemy-at-will by Gogojan has not had any new trades since September 17. We confirmed with Gogojan, and found out that it is not a display error, but that no trades are actually being made (there is no error message).
The account is not insolvent, the balance is above the initial amount, and no positions are held.
The cause is under investigation, including its relation to the September 13 version upgrade.
We will update you as soon as we know more in this series.
This time,Alchemy-at-Willis the topic. Among the three, I think it is the EA that focuses most on “defensive construction.” I will introduce it in order.
In fact, the engine differs from the other two
Rising Tide and Duo use a relatively simple mechanism that layers averages when prices move against you by a fixed amount. Alchemy-at-Will is a little different,it places new positions when RSI hits a contrarian level, and the averaging width automatically expands or contracts according to ATR (the magnitude of price movement), making it more responsive to market conditions.
This “adaptive to market conditions” quality can become a powerful weapon when it works well, but it also means that,compared with Rising Tide and Duo, the situation can change more readily depending on price movement, a delicate engine. That is why we needed to build the defensive mechanism discussed later more robustly than in the other two.
How to tell “buy?” or “sell?” today
Alchemy-at-Will’s new entries actually involve two-stage judgments.
① Direction bias (daily basis)
If the previous day’s close is above the 200-day moving average (200MA), the buy direction is allowed; if below, the sell direction is allowed. A new opposing basket will not be activated on that day.
② Entry timing (5-minute RSI basis)
Within the allowed direction, when RSI drops to oversold (below a default 24) or rises to overbought (above 76), the first bar is actually opened.
In short, it is a hybrid that “permits only directions aligned with the daily trend, and opportunistically picks short-term overshoots in the opposite direction.”This combines a trend-following bias with counter-trend timing.If you look at the daily chart to see whether the current price is above or below the 200MA, you can reasonably predict the directions in which Alchemy-at-Will can place new trades that day. If it’s above, wait for buying opportunities; if below, wait for selling opportunities.
One exception.When counter-direction averaging has accumulated to a certain level,“Rescue Hedge”may occur, ignoring the daily 200MA condition and taking positions in the opposite direction. It is an emergency mechanism to offset losses on the accumulated side. Because of this, there are rare moments when it may look like the 200MA direction is opposite to the positions increasing, but this is not a deviation from normal operation; it is within the expected behavior, so please rest assured.
Defaults (stability) set to the most conservative numbers
Alchemy-at-Will’sDefault setting (stable type): averaging multiplier 1.06xThis is lower than Rising Tide’s 1.10x. Because increasing the multiplier makes the engine more delicate, the default is deliberately the most conservative number.
Additionally, Alchemy-at-Will shares across all three tiers the basic design ofrestricting operation time to 9:00–15:00 and stopping operation on the Goto days (the 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, 25th, and end of month). Unlike 24-hour operation like Rising Tide or Duo, this time-limited and goto-day-avoidant base is fundamental. Furthermore, even when adding more averaging, price conditions plus RSI rebound checks are required, adding a double layer of caution.
On this foundation, the default (stable type) works under leverage of 1:1000 or 1:20, and hasalready been verified to run for seven years (2019.07–2026.07, including the COVID period) without insolvency.
Honestly, I must tell you that Alchemy-at-Will has not undergone the same 12-year validation as Rising Tide or Duo. The default (stable) has been tested for seven years to ensure it can run safely with lower leverage, while the two other modes, aggressive and ultra-aggressive, are designed with high-leverage in mind. If you only look at the official forward numbers, you won’t see these two modes’ true capabilities.
To be candid, among the seven years of testing, Alchemy-at-Will showed the lowest margin maintenance ratio. Under 20x leverage and default (stable) conditions, the minimum margin maintenance ratio can dip to20.13%(Rising Tide 50.76%, Duo M15 mode 196.33%). Among the three golds we handle, this is the lowest margin tolerance under a low-leverage environment. Therefore, we keep the multiplier as low as possible, anchor it with operating hours and days, and impose RSI confirmation on averaging, creating multiple layers of defense. It is a single model focused on defense before flashiness.
Investigating the issue of “narrow averaging width”
Recently, Kenji noticed while looking at actual charts that in calm market phases (the so-called “lull”), the ATR used as the averaging width contracts, so the number of averaging steps can cluster densely within a few dollars of price movement in a short time. Visually, this looks somewhat worrying.
We tested a proposal to set a minimum line for the averaging width by introducing a parameter that allows you to specify a lower bound. We compared backtests with and without the lower bound across three tiers and multiple leverage environments.
The results were honestly contrary to expectations. Setting a lower bound slowed the movement of pushing down the average entry price to a favorable level, and in some cases increased potential losses for the same number of averaging steps. Even with a mild lower bound, performance deteriorated gradually, and a larger lower bound led to scenarios of account insolvency. “Eliminating narrow averaging by appearance” did not necessarily equate to safety.
Therefore, we kept the lower-bound parameter as an option, but decided to disable the default (set to current state). The change intended to alleviate visual anxiety ended up increasing risk in testing, so we delayed the version upgrade. It’s a small but honest example of how a test can have the opposite effect.
There are two more faces beyond that
What differentiates Alchemy-at-Will from the other two is that this stable type intentionally provides two more aggressive settings as alternativesahead of time, as two levels of option.
| Stable (Default) | Aggressive | Ultra-Aggressive | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Averaging multiplier | 1.06x | 1.20x | 1.35x |
| Operating hours & Goto-day avoidance | Common (base) | Common (base) | Common (base) |
| End-of-month / start-of-month filter | OFF | ON | ON |
| Required leverage | Can be 20x or 1000x | 1000x only | 1000x only |
| PF | 2.07–2.33 | 2.55 | 4.38 |
Aggressive and Ultra-Aggressive, on top of this foundation of defense, are settings that only become acceptable when you also stop operation by the end and beginning of the month, enabling higher leverage for the first time. And these two modeshave only been insolvency-free in high-leverage environments around 1:1000 leverage. In domestic typical leverage, we do not recommend using them with the same settings.
When you go on the offensive, go all-in with the environment.
That is the premise of Aggressive and Ultra-Aggressive.
Not only increasing the multiplier, but also securing that extra room in high-leverage environments is for those who want an advanced option.
About the official forward vs. the actual “true value”
There is one thing I want to tell you. Gogojan’s official forward is measured on low-leverage accounts. This is done for transparency in testing, but honestly,Alchemy-at-Will’s real strength is most evident in high-leverage environments. The default “stable” is designed so it can run on low leverage, but the other two faces, Aggressive and Ultra-Aggressive, are settings originally intended for high leverage. If you only look at the official forward numbers, you won’t see these two modes’ true potential.
That said, this does not mean “safe with high leverage” is guaranteed. Since averaging (Martingale-like) logic is used, no matter how much defense you add, if the market moves beyond expectations, losses can expand. Raising leverage is a choice that trades risk for profitability, so please remember that.
Yoko’s note
Alchemy-at-Will is, among our three Golds, the one that most innovates in defensive design. Because of the engine’s nature, it is more delicate than the other two, so we layered protections: operating hours, operating days, and RSI confirmations, repeatedly. With the default (stable), you can use it with complete peace of mind for everyday use.
I understand the appeal of aggressive settings. However, I think it is best to configure the environment first. Start with the default stable, watch how it behaves, and only then consider the two higher levels if your environment is ready.
Next time
Next time, a slightly different one from here,“The Golden Guardian”will be introduced. It is about the option of not using averaging.
Thank you for reading to the end.
Yoko
Product featured this time
View the Alchemy-at-Will sales page※This article presents past verification results and does not guarantee future profits. Please make investment decisions at your own risk.