u/Turbulent_Carry3906

I built an MT5 Expert Advisor for gold/XAUUSD called TrailingPivot.

Yes, ChatGPT named it. I know. We move on.

I’ve been testing this thing for a while, and the latest backtest was good enough that I decided to put it on a small real account.

I’m attaching the backtest graph/report and also a screenshot of how it currently looks running live.

The idea is pretty simple.

The bot waits for confirmed pivot structures on gold. It doesn’t just enter randomly at market when price moves. Once the pivot is confirmed, it places pending orders around that structure and waits for price to actually move into the setup.

After entry, it manages the trade with fixed TP, fixed initial SL, some protection logic, and tick-by-tick trailing once the trade has moved far enough.

There are six modules running together. Each one has its own pivot timeframe and trade geometry, so it’s basically six related versions of the same idea trading together.

The latest version changed a few things:

• tighter initial stop
• slightly closer TP
• later trailing activation
• wider trailing once active

That combination is what got my attention, because it didn’t just improve by giving trades more space or letting losses breathe forever.

Backtest setup:

• XAU
• MT5
• Vantage Markets data
• 2026.05.03 to 2026.10.06
• 450 USD starting balance
• 0.05 fixed lot
• all six modules active
• longs and shorts enabled

Backtest result:

450 USD to about 2,506.55 USD

Net profit was 2,056.55 USD over 358 trades.

Main stats:

• Win rate: 69.27%
• Profit factor: 2.20
• Expected payoff: 5.74 USD
• Average win: 15.21 USD
• Average loss: -15.59 USD
• Max balance drawdown: 270.55 USD / 15.10%
• Max equity drawdown: 345.85 USD / 19.06%

The reason I found it interesting is that the average win and average loss are almost the same size, but the win rate is higher. So it doesn’t look like one huge lucky trade carried the whole backtest.

But obviously, backtests are backtests.

So I moved it to a real Vantage account.

Current live stats so far:

• XAUUSD+
• real account
• hedge mode
• compounding enabled
• 15 closed trades
• 101.32 USD net profit
• 73.33% win rate
• 2.33 profit factor
• max balance drawdown so far: 64.98 USD / 14.85%

I know 15 live trades means almost nothing. This is not proof. It’s just the first real-money stage.

The compounding part is what makes it more interesting, and also more dangerous. If the edge is real, compounding helps. If the edge is fake, compounding just helps the account learn that faster.

I’m not selling anything, not giving signals, and not claiming I solved gold.

I’m posting because I want people to point out what I should test or be worried about before I start trusting it too much.

If this were your EA, what would you attack first?

Spread, slippage, different broker data, module isolation, Monte Carlo, walk-forward, news periods, compounding risk, trailing logic?

Any criticism is welcome.

I’d rather Reddit find the obvious problems before the market does it with real money.

Thanks guys :)

I built an MT5 Expert Advisor for gold/XAUUSD called TrailingPivot (chatGPT´s name).

The latest backtest looked good enough that I immediately became suspicious of it, which I think is the emotionally correct response to any trading system that starts behaving nicely.

So instead of just posting the equity curve and pretending I discovered fire, here’s the actual theory and the numbers.

The basic idea:

Gold often makes impulsive moves away from local structure, but chasing those moves directly can be messy. So the EA waits for confirmed pivot structures instead of reacting to every candle.

Once a pivot is confirmed, the bot does not enter immediately at market. It places pending orders around the structure and waits for price to prove there is enough movement to justify the trade.

After entry, the trade is managed with:

• fixed take-profit
• fixed initial stop-loss
• initial protection logic
• continuous tick-by-tick trailing once price moves far enough
• module-specific parameters

The system is split into six strategy modules.

Each module has its own pivot timeframe and trade geometry. In other words, it is not one single entry rule repeated six times. It is more like six related versions of the same idea, trading different pivot behaviors together.

For version 1.23, the main research changes were:

• tighter initial SL
• slightly closer TP
• later trailing activation
• wider trailing distance once active

That combination is what made the test interesting to me.

Backtest setup:

• Symbol: XAU
• Platform: MetaTrader 5
• Broker data: Vantage Markets
• Period: 2026.05.03 - 2026.10.06
• Starting balance: 450 USD
• Fixed lot: 0.05
• All six modules active
• Long and short trades enabled

The part I liked was that the average win and average loss were almost the same size, but the bot won more often than it lost. So the result was not one giant lucky trade carrying the whole thing. It looked more like repeated structure.

Still, backtests are professional liars.

So I moved it to a real Vantage Markets account to see how it behaves outside the tester.

Early real account stats so far:

Real account

USD account

Hedge mode

Symbol: XAUUSD+

Compounding enabled

Closed trades so far: 15

Total net profit: 101.32 USD

Gross profit: 177.33 USD

Gross loss: -76.01 USD

Profit factor: 2.33

Expected payoff: 6.75 USD

Winning trades: 11 / 15

Losing trades: 4 / 15

Win rate: 73.33%

Short trades: 12, with 66.67% won

Long trades: 3, with 100% won

Largest win: 30.60 USD

Largest loss: -33.90 USD

Average win: 16.12 USD

Average loss: -19.00 USD

Max balance drawdown: 64.98 USD / 14.85%

The compounding part is the most exciting and also the most dangerous.

In fixed-lot mode, the system has a cleaner test profile because trade size stays constant. With compounding enabled, the bot can scale position size as the account grows, which is great if the edge is real and brutal if the edge is fake.

So I am treating the live account as an aggressive experiment, not as proof.

This is not “passive income”.
This is not “I solved gold”.
This is not a signal service.
This is not financial advice.
This is not something I would tell anyone to copy blindly.

It is a live test of a system that looked promising enough in the tester to deserve real execution pressure.

Obviously, 15 live trades proves almost nothing. I know that. The sample size is tiny. Backtests can lie beautifully. Compounding can make both good systems and bad systems more dramatic.

I’m not selling anything, not giving signals, and not claiming this is proven.

I’m posting because I want people to help me find the weak spots before I start trusting it too much.

If this were your EA, what would you attack first?

Spread?
Slippage?
Different broker data?
Module isolation?
Monte Carlo?
Walk-forward?
Forward test duration?
Compounding risk?
Trailing logic?
News periods?

I want the criticism now, while it is still cheaper than learning it from the market. Thank you guys :)