Real work on MT5 NDD - page 7
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
"It should also be noted that when you use a limit order you will never get a price worse than the one you specified in the order - i.e. you will either get the stated price or an execution price better than the stated price."
Power Trader is Integral's own (bought from Russians) platform, which is far from perfect, but still supports MQL4-advisors. It also has a much more functional PTL-language. Therefore, working through it in this case is the most promising. However, its TakeProfit is executed through market orders, which is not good.
And another thing, Integral's demo (it is an aggregation software, not a broker, which is not discussed here) will not coincide with real prices. Because on the ECN demo you can, just like on the real, influence prices by placing your bids. So do not be guided by the demo prices, they may be worse or better than the real ones. It is very important to understand this and not to fool yourself.
Open either Zero-Account, or, if that is not possible, make the minimum possible deposit (you can always withdraw back). Or get an investment password somewhere. The main thing is to see real prices, not demos. Competent brokers have already acting Zero-Account, so anyone can enter it without any registration and estimate real prices. Such brokers on such accounts do not have paranoid schemes of broadcasting real prices with delays due to idiotic fear of providing free feeds.
I have a real account on NDD but I cannot check anything without a deposit.
I don't mind losing 30 quid on commission if I get disappointed.)
Thank you !
Do not rule out the option of talking to someone at the broker, but not to the helpdesk girls. A competent employee will be interested in giving you access to real prices for at least a day or two, if you explain the reasons for your request in a comprehensible way.
You can also view Integral's tick history here. It's close to the broker's, which will give you a relatively rough estimate of prices too.
P.S. There is a reason for the subtle differences in the names: Power Trader ECN and MT5 NDD.
To avoid negative slippage, replace market orders with limiters at the current price. If the broker has limiters (including TakeProfit) implemented through market orders, run away from it. Because this is a lazy and therefore very common scheme for implementing limiters in MT-bridges. Look for a broker that implements limiters through limiters. Then you will never run into negative slippage, and you will always have the added bonus of positive slippage. This will have a very positive effect on your strategy's maturity expectation in the end.
Why are market orders always negative slippage? Isn't it up to the broker himself to use rounding to his side?
Also, it is not clear why a limit order should execute faster and better than a market order, in equal conditions... it makes more sense that a limit order will take a bit longer to execute because the limit order first needs to be set before it is executed, while a market order can be executed immediately.
1. why are market orders always negative slippage? Isn't it up to the broker himself to use rounding to his side?
2. also it is not clear why the limit order should execute faster and better than the market order, in equal conditions... it makes more sense that the limit order will take a bit longer, because the limit order has to be registered first, and then executed, while the market order can be executed immediately.
1. where did he say it is always? Read carefully.
2) Likewise, he didn't write faster, although I accept that it is faster because limiters are "liquidity providers", hence may have priority when placed in the market. And they do not need to be checked against current prices (unlike market orders) and can be sent straight through all intermediate gateways "without looking". As for"better" - so a positive slippage is better than "some", no? :)
1. where did he say he always did? Read more carefully.
2) Similarly, he didn't write faster, although I accept that it is faster because limiters are 'liquidity providers', hence may have priority when placed on the market. And they do not need to be checked against current prices (unlike market orders) and can be sent straight through all intermediate gateways "without looking". As for"better" - so a positive slippage is better than "some", no? :)
1. There is a single statement in the sentence that one must be changed for the other. When you don't have to change it doesn't mean you always have to change it.
2. What makes you think that market orders are not "liquidity providers". They do not affect anything? And the statement about gateways is incomprehensible - don't market orders need to be brought to market?
1. The only statement in the sentence is that one must be changed for the other. When you don't have to change it doesn't mean you always have to change it.
2. What makes you think that market orders are not "liquidity providers". They don't affect anything? And the statement about gateways is unclear - don't market orders need to be brought to market?
There is a definite problem with the buy-stop when the spread is floating.
In this scheme I drew a zigzag (at least the high candlestick) drawn by a bid.
The spread is widening, the order is grabbed by Askom, but there was no breakdown by Bid...
I cannot create a condition for bystop to trigger when a bid price breaks.
There is a definite problem with the buy-stop when the spread is floating.
In this scheme I drew a zigzag (at least the high candlestick) drawn by a bid.
The spread is widening, the order is grabbed by Askom, but there was no breakdown by Bid...
I cannot create a condition for bystop to trigger at a bid price break.
I know what you mean, that's what I meant when I created thehttps://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/6080 thread. Need an Ask History.... . I have the same problem with moose. I'm sitting on an ancient, fixed spread because of it.
Likewise...
And buying from the market is controllable...