Whether locking or counter positions are possible - page 3
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
I just read on the links above how the person who said that all locs can be replaced admitted that this is not true. And I do not like the "averaging" as well. This is the first time I read about it and the first time I tried to use it, but the EA developers seem to be more concerned about following rules in USA. The new version will support MT4 and that is good, but MQL5 will not be added (or the standard library and the Wizard will be added). The brokers are unlikely to use MT4 + MT5 at the same time.
If you have read the links, I don't know what you have read, but as someone who has studied this question in details, I would say that any broken strategy may be realized using netting. And there are no exceptions.
Specially not to infringe even loco enthusiasts, warrants have been introduced into the trade.
There are some interesting results, that completely fill all the gaps in the release of lock trading on netting.
Another thing is how complicated it is and why it's needed. If lock is a delayed error correction, it may be better to take the time to study the errors.
And brokers are unlikely to use MT4 + MT5 at the same time
I don't know what you read there (you didn't give any links), but I must say as someone who studied this question in details, that any lock strategy can be realized using netting. And there are no exceptions.
To make sure that even lovers of loco are not disadvantaged in trading, warrants have been introduced.
I have already seen a number of interesting results, that have completely closed all the loopholes in the release of the lock trading on netting.
Another thing is how difficult it is and why it is needed. If lock is a delayed error correction, it may be better to allocate time to study the errors.
1. If i've learned about delayed lock, it's better to give some time to study errors (but i've hardly used them).
Of course it is possible to realize a strategy, but not to make it effective and efficient. When you look at the volumes, the number of deals and other stuff may be similar, but for the balance you will not get the same conditions.
2. It does not matter what orders were added and why. The netting (cumulative) position calculation method implemented in MT5 provides fixation of losses when certain trades are executed in the loss-making zone.
I will not argue whether it is correct or not, but in the current situation there are not many options, as I understand there are only three:
a - not to make certain trades (flips and trims) in the loss zone. This, as you understand, may require certain changes to the TS;
b - to accept the current situation as a necessary evil and fix losses. That will not affect the logic of TS, but it will greatly affect its efficiency;
c - refuse to use MT5. At least do not use it to trade a strategy for MT4.
3. It's not about the lock. For example, I don't use a classic lock (locking the entire position) in a losing zone. But the strategy did not work, because it takes a huge place of additions, cuts and reversals. And I do not conduct these operations in the profit zone, as a rule.
...
The only difference when porting locked strategy to netting is that the balance chart in some places is interchanged with equity chart.
The only difference (even theoretically) is that certain profitable strategies in MT4 can easily turn into loss-making ones.
The only difference (even theoretically) is that some strategies may easily become loss-making ones.
I had enough trouble (for almost a year) with a strategy trading with one algorithm, and I cannot even think about what may happen with strategies using several algorithms on one symbol.
PS
By the way, the transfer of positions from MT4 to MT5 turned out to be much more useful (at least in my opinion), who needs it, may do the analysis in MT5...
The only difference (even theoretically) is that certain profitable strategies in MT4 can easily turn into loss-making ones.
The only difference (even theoretically) is that some strategies may easily turn into loss-making ones.
PS
I've had enough trouble (for almost a year) with strategy that trades with one algorithm, and what can happen to strategies that trade with several algorithms on one symbol is scary to think about...
You may be sure you will have to "bother" with lots because their profitability is much lower than for non-lock strategies.
If we were talking about lots, they wouldn't be the only poor ones to suffer as a result.
Try, for example, to reverse or cut a position consisting of several trades in MT4 and MT5.
And not just reverse or cut, but do it in a losing zone (when the netting position shows a minus).
I do not know what the U.S. legislator intended to prevent locks, but in fact half of the strategies will have to be significantly remade, if they are not sent to the furnace.
PS
By the way, embedded in a trading system netting could be implemented in the architecture of MT4 (at least I've seen something very similar in terminals at least stylized for MT).
The idea was that when a trade or an order was placed, the parameter whether it would glue with others or not (according to trader's choice) was specified.
The only thing for which the lock may be needed, is the training of a neural network. But even then you can lock only in your "head", and trade netting.
Loki is a very complicated thing, probably one of the complicated things in the trade.
The problem is that locks, at least in MT, were linked to some other things. With the introduction of the ban, strategies that are not directly linked to locks (yet consistently profitable in MT4) have also suffered.
But there's no sense to argue about it, as there are no locks in MT5. Other rules, other strategies, other reality. The world has changed (good or bad, it doesn't matter)...