Public discussion of the formula for calculating the cost of resources in the MQL5 Cloud Network - page 37
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 am not going to argue, but a purely rhetorical question - Is it okay to call a person a "sucker" if he is making money, no matter how?
I myself have a negative attitude to "lots", but I'm not saying they're ABSOLUTELY evil...
We have all been suckers for at least a year when we got into this line of business (trading) =)
Absolute evil? No, absolute stupidity? stupidity? yes, pure stupidity. I gave an example above of how to feel the detrimental effect of spread on any strategy, throwing it right and left is stupidity. It is not a problem at all to write in an EA a function that will output cumulative position to the market. Perhaps, I should not write a big article about "spread and lots", but it will be published at mql4.ru, so there should be no further questions.
Strategies can be adapted (tried), but you will not get full compatibility (100% compatibility) in a large number of cases.
I am not saying that you cannot get it at all, on certain strategies you can, but you cannot do it on quite complex trading strategies.
Vladimir, this is the third time (if I'm not mistaken) that I ask you to confirm my words with an example.
A simple (or complex), concrete and reproducible example.
Stop misleading people, MT5 will not be able to implement swap only if you have an open position on the change of day.
Interesting:
1. These are two different philosophies. When it comes to simple strategies: "opened a position, put TP/SL", "filled a position, put TP/SL" may work out. But try to implement a complex strategy, with locking, with reversals and cutting unprofitable positions (exactly unprofitable in terms of "NETTING" of MT5).
It's about the same thing. And I have to repeat myself once again.
Do not look at the balance line, and there will be no illusions. In MT4 it was possible to draw beautiful reports (with a beautiful balance chart without drawdown). You can draw the same reports in Photoshop, MT is not needed.
And you have to look at equity in trading, it is what reflects the real situation.
The trading part has long been running and debugged, the refinement of the MT5 platform at the moment only concerns autotrading, tester, programming language and similar related trading gadgets.
To be honest, after reading the notes on new releases, I have no desire to trade with real money through MT5.
When such things are fixed (or just changed), it's hard to call the platform "ready for real money".
In particular cases MT5 is suitable for trading.
But if the large masses are allowed to trade through five (for example, by forcibly transferring everyone from four), so many glitches will appear, that builds will be released every day...
This is IMHO, of course, but IMHO not unreasonable.
Vladimir, this is the third time (if I am not mistaken) that I have asked you to back up your words with an example.
A simple (or complex), concrete and reproducible example.
Stop misleading people, MT5 will not be able to implement swap only when there is an open position on the change of the day.
1. I tell you I say it's a "religion". I "believe" that there is a certain group of strategies (let's not go into detail about whether they are correct and profitable or not). In essence, these strategies are an individual approach to trading, which is possible to implement within the MT4 order accounting system (lots, counter positions, reversals and trimming of losing positions, etc.).
If someone thinks that this is not the case, it is their right, I am not dragging anyone into my "faith".
2. It should be noted that many accounts in MT4 have very strict limitations on the number of orders (and the trading conditions are often different), even strategies fine-tuned for MT4 are not always possible to trade under such conditions.
I also tried to explain why this is my opinion. But some people, including you, do not think these arguments are valid. Do not search the forum, so there is a simple solution - take the simplest EA that implements grid trading (a lot of differently directed orders) and put it on MT4, while copying data from MT4 to MT5 (not the reverse).
After 3 months we compare statistical data and equity curve. If the strategies are the same, then as I understand the curves should be identical and the main indices (FF, MO, drawdowns, etc.).
I am sure everyone who is really interested in this subject can perform this experiment himself.
4. I have another offer - I register a demo in Insta with certain leverage and certain deposit and give you investor access. You copy trades in MT5, you may as well registered in Insta (exactly from MT4 to MT5!). After a certain period of time we compare the equity curves and the previously agreed statistical indicators.
It does not matter how I trade, what is important is that all trades are copied to MT5.
In case you haven't noticed, this post was not about balance. And another thing, you should not say afterwards that the strategies are identical, and that there is a difference in indicators such as: PF, MO, Annual return forecast (marked as Annual forecas on Onex) and others are trifles.
PS
Statistical indicators are different, the strategies are different (or at least different implementation), even if the equity dynamics are the same (which I highly doubt).
IMHO.
A new approach in the rules of evidence?
No, it's not. You're the one who thinks that two times two = forty-two. And you're the one who has to provide all the proof.
There's no faith whatsoever.
Everybody's gonna be copying your trades into mt5.
I'm sure that everyone who is really interested in this topic can do such an experiment himself.
1. I'm telling you - it's a "religion". I "believe" that there is a certain group of strategies (let's not go into details whether they are correct and profitable or not). In essence, these strategies are an individual approach to trading, which is possible to implement within the MT4 order accounting system (lots, counter positions, reversals and trimming of losing positions, etc.).
If someone believes that this is not the case it is their right, I am not dragging anyone into my "faith".
When you believe, you don't run around with a loudspeaker in the streets and shouting about your beliefs. They believe - for themselves.
They act in such a way when they want to get something. An audience? Attention? I don't know...
All I'm asking is not to mislead the public. Talk about your religion all you want, but don't twist the truth.
Interesting:
In case you haven't noticed, this post was never about balance. Also, you don't have to say that the strategies are identical, but that there is a difference in indicators such as: PF, MO, Annual return forecast (marked as Annual forecas on Onex) and others are trifles.Statistics are different - strategies are different (or at least different implementations), even if the dynamics of equity change are the same (which I highly doubt).
IMHO.
Well, I finally understand what "discrepancies" we're talking about!
Yes, some indices (PF, IMF and others that depend on the number of trades) in MT5 report will be different from those in MT4 report.
However, equity lines will be identical (or the MT5 equity will be higher).
If there are no objections, I suggest closing the thread. At least until the next unsubstantiated statement on impossibility to transfer the strategy to MT5...
PS: thanks for the "imho", it is missing in many posts.
komposter:
I finally understand the "discrepancies" we're talking about!
Yes, some indicators (PF, MO and others that depend on the number of trades) in MT5 report will be different from similar ones in MT4 report.
However, equity lines will be identical (or the MT5 equity will be higher).
If there are no objections, I suggest closing the topic. At least until the next unsubstantiated statement on the inability to transfer the strategy to MT5.
PS: thanks for the "imho", it is missing in many posts.
1. My position is the following. As for strategies transferred from MT4 to MT5, they can be divided into 4 major groups: a) ones that are impossible to be implemented as they are; b) ones that can be implemented but their equity dynamics and statistics will not coincide; c) ones whose equity dynamics will coincide but statistics will not; d) ones whose equity and statistics will totally coincide.
2. Combining the first two groups (the first is insignificant and its value does not exceed 1%), we arrive at the following picture: 10% - strategies that fail to be transferred in their current form (equity and statistics will not match); 25% - experts that match everything (I will call them "correct" strategies); 65% - strategies whose equity dynamics are supposedly the same, the spread within the margin of error, but statistical indicators will differ significantly (I will call such strategies "adaptable" to NETTING trade conditions).
Figures are of course subjective and different estimations may give different data, but in the end three groups will still "appear". We do not have disagreements regarding the last two, if we take the dynamics of equity and abstract from everything else.
If we take into account that 10% mostly include SLIVE strategies or those which will not fully work on the real market, they should not be taken into account from a professional trader's point of view (and then all 100% strategies may be transferred to MT5 one way or another). From my point of view, only 90% of strategies can be transferred to the new platform.
Note that before I was convinced that only 25% of EAs should be fully ported, because only they will have a full match.
But after further thinking, including discussion of this question with you, the list of "adaptable" strategies has been extended to those whose only equity dynamics coincide with those observed in MT4.
PS
This topic should really be closed.
It really is time to close the topic.
Interesting:
Any strategy when transferred to MT5:
1) it will either maintain or improve all its performance (the question is in the use of hedges, if there were any - the strategy will definitely improve its performance).
2) There is no strategy that cannot be transferred to MT5. Not in its pure form, of course, but in a much improved one.
I look at MT5 as an inoculation of fools who use hedges) yes, yes, you use hedges - you're a fool and that's a fact. (no offence meant to offend anyone).
Interesting:
Any strategy when transferred to MT5:
1) it will either maintain or improve all its performance (the issue is in the use of hedges, if there were any - the strategy will definitely improve its performance).
2) There is no strategy that cannot be transferred to MT5. Not in its pure form, of course, but in a much improved one.
I look at MT5 as an inoculation of fools who use hedges) yes, yes, you use hedges - you're a fool and that's a fact. (no offence, didn't mean to offend anyone).
1) Either it will save, or... Your optimism is encouraging and hopeful
2) Described the grid situation above. It certainly can be implemented in MT5 in one form or another, especially when virtualization is available. Imagine for a moment what would happen if the connection disappears in a real trade for about two hours. The virtualization is good (one can consider it an ideal solution) only in the history testing mode. In real trading there is a great risk of getting stuck with serious money. But everything depends on the broker, the trading strategy and the exact conditions.
The MQ probably will not realize HUGE virtualization because of that. Although you have to ask them specifically.
3) And if the strategy is not translated in its pure form, can it be considered an exact implementation, or will it already be a different (adapted) strategy? And who says that the result cannot be worse?
Questions can be left unanswered, opinion on the level of IMHO.
And you have only two choices, either give proof or close the subject.
10, 25, 65 - figures are subjective and may not coincide with the data and opinion of other researchers.
Everything else is "Religion", and is essentially flub/demogoguery. Otherwise someone (I suppose me) would have to prove the point by giving specific figures (I'm sure there are very few willing to do so).
The topic is closed.