Once again, about the lokas. - page 59
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
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 locks removed in MT5?
If they do not hinder anyone, but only contribute to the execution of the basic 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 give a damn about lockstep?
Loki was removed to fight profitable strategies.
I absolutely agree about the beer, it's ridiculous to argue about the uselessness of locking after that.
Do you know why they were introduced in MT4?
Who are they, news in the terminal, lots of indicators and EAs, opportunities for TA, lots of things that don't give statistical advantage and don't reduce risks for trading or locking?
I think for facilitating the execution of the basic algorithm.
)))
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.
Emphasis:
Why exactly are locs removed in MT5?
If they do not interfere with anyone, but only contribute to the execution of the basic 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 give a damn about lockstep?
Why MT5 doesn't have locks - you'd better ask developers. Maybe because they (developers) have found it unreasonable to support both systems of accounting. And if you support one, then from commercial point of view the choice in favour of netting is obvious.
My position in relation to the loks is exactly that - "purple" because the loks do not provide an advantage, and I'm not against the loks, as such - the lack of benefits does not really mean not applicable (I do not "purple", here you're right: it is - we can simplify the logic, no - well, recalculate to netting: the result will not change anyway).
The aversion position appears when lots are stated as a practically risk-free trading strategy, although they are not (neither a strategy, nor a risk-free one). That misleads a lot of traders, especially beginners, and gives a chance to "cheat" inexperienced investors.
Again, my position is: if there is - not bad, if there isn't - not bad.
If a trader uses lots in trading - that's their business. But if the trader claims that because of the lack of lots in the platform he/she cannot earn (not considering the case when the trader does not know how to convert to netting - this is a technical aspect), or that he/she earns more money with less risk thanks to lots, then here he/she deceives both themselves (which is their own business) and people around. And this cannot but cause rejection of such claims, namely of benefits - the very existence / absence of locks has nothing to do with it.
A special case is the development of the theme of using "lock strategies" to raise funds under management. Here the notion of "broken strategy" is not the result of multiple strategies in trading (in the form of Expert Advisors or hands), but exactly the "pure lock": opening in different directions with equal Sizes from every position for the same instrument. If a trader does it deliberately to raise funds and get commissions, then it is a fraud (exploitation of ignorance and abuse of trust) - IMHO, of course.
I hope I've made myself clear....
Do you know why they were introduced in MT4?
At least put a smiley face ;).....
However, it may be useful to someone:
They (lots) have never been introduced. This is just a side effect of the separate accounting by the platform of groups of related orders. Which does not and never has happened in the real market...
Why MT5 has removed locos is probably a better question to ask the developers. Maybe because they (the developers) found it unreasonable to support both accounting systems. And if you support one, then from commercial point of view the choice in favour of netting is obvious.
My position with respect to locs is exactly that - "purple" because locs do not provide an advantage, and I'm not against locs, as such - the lack of advantage does not really mean not applicable (I do not "purple", here you're right: it is - we can simplify the logic, no - well, recalculate on netting: the result will not change anyway).
The aversion position appears when lots are stated as a practically risk-free trading strategy, although they are not (neither a strategy, nor a risk-free one). That misleads a lot of traders, especially beginners, and gives a chance to "cheat" inexperienced investors.
Again, my position is: if there is - not bad, if there isn't - not bad.
If a trader uses lots in trading - that's their business. But if the trader claims that because of the lack of lots in the platform he/she cannot earn (not considering the case when the trader does not know how to convert to netting - this is a technical aspect), or that he/she earns more money with less risk thanks to lots, then here he/she deceives both themselves (which is their own business) and people around. And this cannot but cause rejection of such claims, namely of benefits - the very existence / absence of locks has nothing to do with it.
A special case is the development of the theme of using "lock strategies" to raise funds under management. Here the notion of "broken strategy" is not the result of multiple trading strategies (in the form of Expert Advisors or hands), but exactly the "pure lock": opening in different directions with equal Sizes from every position for the same instrument. If a trader does it deliberately to raise funds and get commissions, then it is a fraud (exploitation of ignorance and abuse of trust) - IMHO, of course.
I hope I've made myself clear....
Again, everyone's talking about their own sore point, what do investors, fundraising, stock strategies etc. have to do with it.
If tomorrow someone decides to ban trading on the mashka 1-2-3 or limit the number of instruments with one yen, because they feel pressure, what would be your reaction?
Not everyone thinks that crucian carp are fish, not everyone catches and eats them, but in this pond it is forbidden to fish, probably because they bite)))
Hope I've made myself clear....
I hope I've made myself clear....Of course. We should bring back the loki. Let's band together.
Let's get MT6 with lokas!
Let's have MT6 with negative spread!
At least put a smiley face ;).....
However, it may be useful to someone:
They (lots) have never been introduced. This is just a side effect of the separate accounting by the platform of groups of related orders. Which doesn't and never has happened in the real market.
You can't buy and sell at the same time?
The market, is Smoke and Baby, with balls, but not walking the labyrinth of established rules.
The first rule of the market, no rules.
)))
Let's get MT6 with lokas!
I agree.
Who's with us?