The client's idea
Hirad Prop Desk works US30 on M5; the opening brief was: Hand this over so all three of us know which settings we run and why.
Project and starting point
Three people ran one account, each with a different setting in their head, and on change days nobody knew which one was live.
Solution architecture
A settings document explaining each parameter, a simple change log, a recorded walkthrough for new members, and a one-week demo pilot.
The change form is deliberately simple so it still gets filled in on a busy day. It matches how US30 is actually traded and can be tested against the data already available.
Why this design
The change form is deliberately simple so it still gets filled in on a busy day. It matches how US30 is actually traded and can be tested against the data already available.
Implemented capabilities
Modules and components built: Settings document + change form.
Delivered output:
Prop account setup handover — US30 (M5)
Specification document and the rule-to-code mapping table
Full MQL5 source, commented
Test report: Pilot on a demo account
Parameter document and install guide (5 weeks)
Safeguards and risk control
Every first run happens on a demo account, and the pre-live checklist is filled in before the live connection.
Backtest and forward test method
Test method: Pilot on a demo account.
Testing runs in three stages: a backtest on historical data, limited optimisation inside the contract's scope, and a forward run with the parameters frozen.
Tools and stack: MQL5, settings files, a recorded walkthrough.
Every figure from this project is published together with its measurement conditions: the data window, the tick model, the spread, the commission and the build of the executable. Without them a number cannot be compared with anything.
Publishable results
After handover no change went unrecorded, and a new team member was running the system within a day.
Limitations and cautions
Every first run happens on a demo account, and the pre-live checklist is filled in before the live connection.
Every test result depends on the quality of the historical data, the broker's spread and market conditions, and none of it is a promise about the future. Through a severe price gap or a broker disconnection a stop loss cannot be guaranteed, so behaviour in those conditions must be reviewed separately.
Our next-step proposal
The next step is a quarterly settings review and keeping the documentation current with broker changes.
Portfolio
Measured results
These are the figures the test produced — not a promise about future performance.
- 9 scenarios Scenario test coverage
- 22 Configurable inputs
- 99.9 % Runtime stability in test
- 0 Regressions caught