Whether locking or counter positions are possible - page 5
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
The OOP allows you to create virtual orders, as well as to conduct debriefing on their history. So lock as much as you like, but virtually.
Virtual orders, virtual trading, virtual money. Make money when and most importantly on what?
Virtual trading does not solve half of the problems that have arisen after the cancellation of the lots. Although, we should admit that some problems can be solved.
To train neural networks, multidirectional positions appear in the TS, when orders are opened at a specified time interval, or, perhaps, for some other ideologically similar tasks. We need detailed information about each trade operation separately over the whole history for statistics. These are the same locks that can be implemented in MT5 using virtual orders organized according to OOP. That's what I mean.
So, on netting, or rather the MT5 platform in general, you can implement anything you like, including the glorious locks (multidirectional positions).
Yes, virtually, but when it comes to reality (transferring virtual orders to real trading) we'll get a not very desirable result.
Absolutely everything that happens in the negative zone (except SL) will not work as it did before.
So we'll either have to move away from the strategies or seriously rework them.
Virtual orders, virtual trading, virtual money. To make money when and most importantly on what?
Virtual trading does not solve half of the problems that have arisen after the cancellation of lots. But we have to admit that it is possible to solve some problems.
Yes, virtually, but when we come to the reality (transferring of virtual orders to the real trading) we will get not a very good result.
Absolutely everything that happens in the negative zone (with the exception of SL) will not work as it did before.
Therefore, we will have to either get rid of the strategies or seriously rework them.
The main thing is that the equity graph will be identical in both cases, and there is nothing more important than that.
That's where all this stuff comes from. What is called balance is not balance. Equity is balance.
the trading totals will be identical, one-to-one.
The virtual system and MT4 data should undoubtedly match.
As for regular trades, I need to think about it, most likely it will depend on the strategy.
PS
I liked the equity option, I have never thought of counting equity as a balance.
...
PS
I like the equity option, I never thought about considering equity as a balance.
If the equity is below the margin code, you will be immediately withdrawn and the equity can become a balance at any time, if you want, you just need to close all your positions. In the tester, at the end of the testing period, all trades are forcibly closed, that is why you get a failure of balance on a martin, to the level of the requity.
So what is primary?
The important thing is that the equity graph will be identical in both cases, and there is nothing more important than that.
---
Misha, hi, haven't seen you for ages.)
Hi )
You, move over here slowly.
For loops opponents, here's a challenge: I open two positions at once, one for a sell and one for a buy, with the same lot. The price can go up or down, I don't care, one of the takeprofits will surely close, and the market can turn around and close the second takeprofit. Now rewrite the same with the same result on the netting. Weak?
I open two positions at once, one for sell and the other for buy, with the same lot. The price can go up or down, it does not make the difference, one of the takeprofits will surely close, and the market may reverse and close the second takeprofit. Now rewrite the same with the same result on the netting. How dare you?
I wanted to highlight my favourite moments, but then I realised - everything was there... Every word. Thank you! :))) Without discussing implementation issues - a counter question: "What should I do if the market does not turn around and closes the second TP?
Here is a task for loops opponents: I open two positions at once, one for a sell and the other for a buy. The price may go up or down, I do not care, one of the takeprofits will surely close, and the market may reverse and close the second takeprofit. Now rewrite the same with the same result on the netting. How dare you?
Dear Sir, locks help, but not in your case. In your case, it's more likely to be holiday marasmus. Lock only becomes useful when it is positive. You consciously initially open a frozen loss in the amount of spreads of two positions.
The market has gone either way... As long as you do not close the lock, your equity will have a constant constant loss. As soon as you close the supposedly profitable position, you will have a profit on your balance sheet. Hooray!!! You scream... But no... You have opened a lock and your funds have sagged by the size of the loss of that very unprofitable position, whose loss was temporarily frozen by the opposite profitable position. As soon as you closed the profitable one, you allowed your funds to drawdown. And now you are waiting "what if the market turns around"... And if it does not? Are you going to lock it further? And then you will open the lock again to put imaginary profit on the balance? And funds are melting. And MarginCall, and StopOut do not correspond to the balance size, but to the equity size.
You have a long, long way to go before you realize it. You are at its very beginning.
Dear, loci help, but not in your case. In your case, it's more likely to be holiday marasmus. A lock becomes useful only when it is positive. You are deliberately opening a frozen loss in the amount of spreads between two positions.
The market goes either way... As long as you do not close the lock, your equity will have a constant constant loss. As soon as you close the supposedly profitable position, your balance will be set to that very position's profit. Hooray!!! You scream... But no... You have opened a lock and your funds sagged by the size of the loss of that very unprofitable position, whose loss was temporarily frozen by the opposite profitable position. As soon as you closed the profitable one, you allowed your funds to drawdown. And now you are waiting "what if the market turns around"... And if it does not? Are you going to lock it further? And then you will open the lock again to put the imaginary profit on the balance? And funds are melting. And MarginCall, and then StopOut come not by the size of balance, but by the size of equity.
You have a long, long way to go to understand this. You are at the very beginning of it.
Artyom, I have long been embarrassed to ask: why the hell not?
// Please don't point the finger at your neighbour who trades profitably with such locks. That's not proof. I have neighbours who trade profitably without them.