Once again, about the lokas. - page 58
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
They have never cheated, if the algorithm is error-free. Indicators and Expert Advisors always work in strict accordance with the specified algorithm.
If you don't know the algorithm of advisors or indicators and you expect something from them that they are not able to implement, it is your personal problem.
I agree. I have a friend who likes to experiment with new indicators. His favourite words are "I like this indicator" and "this indicator is f...icky". The order of the phrases is known. He's looking for a new one. He trades with his hands, and ignores his main indicator "the brain" all the time. The result is a dump.
And the indicators can't fuck it up!
Never cheat if the algorithm is error-free. Indicators and Expert Advisors always work exactly according to the given algorithm.
If you are not familiar with the algorithm of advisors or indicators, and you expect them to do something that they are not able to do - that is your own problem.
Don't be like a toddler who only remembers and notices a three-letter word, if you comment, don't dwell on words or phrases taken out of context, don't divert from the topic of discussion.
)))
Your agreement/disagreement has nothing to do with quantification. Neither does locs have anything to do with hedge. What the banks use has nothing to do with locs.
Regarding the highlighted in your post : analysis in the studio. There is nothing to talk about without it. It has been shown more than once on this forum algebraically (if you understand how it is) that lock stats have no advantage over netting. And worse on the size of swaps, if any. Do your best to search history and check the calculations before shaking the air with unsubstantiated claims. Or, if you want to understand where you are wrong, provide your calculations. If someone is not too lazy to look for errors for the hundredth time, he/she may advise.
Proof. Yes please. A simple TS on the muwings. Two screens with opposite order openings
Bottom line:
(lot 0.1)
A drawdown of about $600 instead of $1200
Profit about 600 instead of 300
"After a bunch of complaints from misled traders..." -
To avoid being misled, it is not forex trading methods that should be banned, but forex itself. Cheating indicators, cheating EA, thechanalysis and fundamentals, not to mention news, but banning locs.
Where are the origins of the fraud, and what do the DCs providing access to the market on this platform have to do with the NFA?
The NFA is the regulator for companies operating in US markets. Non-American dealing firms may listen, they may not. They just won't pass the NFA certification and won't be able to enter the US market. Dukas, for example, implements both accounting systems in their platforms. And no one forbids them anything - they are not in the US market (i.e. outside the area of responsibility of US market makers). But "de facto" everything is still counted netting, regardless of the accounting system implemented in the trader's trading platform - it has always been so, and it cannot be otherwise.
What do you have against FOREX? Why prohibit it? So you want to say that the Jamaican system should be abandoned (ban the free exchange of currency) and return to the Bretton Woods Accords or generally to the gold standard? IMHO - this was not abandoned for nothing at the time - it is a dead end of development.
Indicators, EA, thechanalysis and fundamentals are cheating ? Who are they deceiving? And "why should the market follow the indicators - or rather the way that some analysts/trader has invented to analyze the market? Especially when you consider that quite often different ways of analysis and different analysts, even using similar methods of analysis, show different directions, and where should the poor market go ?????
And about loops: just use - do not work with American brokerage companies. You do not need them, you have a choice.
The question is whether using a lock gives or does not give an advantage for trading and whether it reduces the risks. The answer is unambiguous - it gives no advantages, and does not reduce risks. And it is quite understandable: the accounting system cannot affect the process itself, but it can hide the real situation for a while.
Proofs. Yes please. A simple TS on a muwling. Two screenshots with opposite order openings
Bottom line:
(lot 0.1)
The drawdown is about $600 instead of $1200
Profit about 600 instead of 300
? You have inverted one system relative to the other and are claiming one with less drawdown at this stretch of history... Even your screenshots show that orders were closed at different times at different prices.... what does this prove? where is the lock and where are the benefits from it?
And one picture is nothing ..... although you can see that the systems are not equivalent ;) .....
? You have inverted one system relative to the other and are claiming one of them with less drawdown in this piece of history... Even in your screenshots you can see that orders were closed at different times at different prices.... what does this prove? where is the lock and where are the benefits from it?
And the pictures alone are nothing..... although you can also see that the systems are not equivalent ;) .....
Categorical categorization in the field of wide creativity leads to a dead end))))
You don't see the obvious in the screenshots. The advantage... Equity release - although this is another polemic. For example you can find a DC with great leverage, and so on.
The main thing is that it works. In this case the system is mirrored in order opening and considered as LOC, which led to higher profitability and lower drawdown.
You want the equivalent to a point ? there will be no such thing.
The NFA is the regulator for companies operating in US markets. Non-American dealers may or may not listen. They just won't pass the NFA certification and will not be able to enter the US market. Ducas, for example, implements both accounting systems in their platforms. And no one forbids them anything - they are not in the US market (i.e. outside the area of responsibility of US market makers). But "de facto" everything is still counted netting, regardless of the accounting system implemented in the trader's trading platform - it has always been so, and it cannot be otherwise.
What do you have against FOREX? Why prohibit it? So you want to say that the Jamaican system should be abandoned (ban the free exchange of currency) and return to the Bretton Woods Accords or generally to the gold standard? IMHO - this was not abandoned for nothing at the time - it is a dead end of development.
Indicators, EA, thechanalysis and fundamentals are cheating ? Who are they deceiving? And "why should the market follow the indicators - or rather the way that some analysts/trader has invented to analyze the market? Especially when you consider that quite often different ways of analysis and different analysts, even using similar methods of analysis, show different directions, and where should the poor market go ?????
And about loops: just use - do not work with American DCs. You do not need them, you have a choice.
The question is about something else - does using locks give or not a statistical advantage for trading and reduces the risks? The answer is unambiguous - no it does not, and it does not reduce risks. And it's understandable: the system of accounting itself cannot affect the process, but it can hide the truth for a while.
The news in the terminal, a lot of indicators and Expert Advisors, the possibilities for TA, many things do not give statistical advantages and do not reduce risks for trading.
But.
I emphasize:
Why exactly are locks removed in MT5?
If they do not hinder anyone, but only contribute to execution of the main algorithm. )))
As for the deadlock, the rejection of a gold standard, is an accelerating kick in the direction of the deadlock. Everyone has their own perception of reality, events and consequences.
If I don't drink beer, why shouldn't everyone else drink it either, even though it doesn't provide any advantage or reduce risks? Why have you taken this position in this thread and defended it if you don't care about lockstep?
Being categorical in the field of wide creativity leads to a dead end.))
You don't see the obvious in the screenshots. Advantage... Release of equity - although this is another polemic. For example you can find a DC with great leverage, and so on.
The main thing is that it works. In this case the system is mirrored in order opening and considered as LOC which resulted in higher profitability and smaller drawdown.
You want the equivalent to a point ? there will be no such thing.
Would you be so kind as to give a list of transactions of the strategy you consider to be LOC and the strategy you do not consider to be LOC, in addition to the general phrases. So that you can compare and quantify both strategies. At the same time to see what you think is possible with LOC, which is impossible with netting.
News in the terminal, lots of indicators and advisors, opportunities for TA, lots of things that don't give a statistical advantage or reduce the risks of trading.
But.
I emphasize:
Why exactly are lots removed in MT5?