Question on working with stops: classic on limiters + stops integrated into position - page 10
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
And besides, I'm not a clerk.
Same issue with rollovers. Rollovers, aka swaps, are not trades, did you know that? Nevertheless, the terminal takes a profit every time it swaps. As a result, the statistics distort the size of the current floating profit on the position. This is annoying. There is no such thing in our own trading system. We exactly addressed this question to MT-5 developers. We should make rollovers decrease the deposit size by the difference of swaps but not distort the floating profit.
I guess that you personally would be surprised to learn that MetaTrader 5 has 8 types of rollovers, among which only 2 with re-opening of positions and the other 6 with saving of positions and swaps field charging.
And the bank itself has chosen the modes with over-opening of positions.
> Why don't you understand that sl and tp will be applied to the entire position volume, and that it's convenient that instead of changing all the stops, you just drag the line and the stop is moved to the entire current volume.
And why do you think that a trader must exit a position in one trade? And you don't consider staggered, staggered position cutting (just like staggered profit taking)? The idea to use a moving stop is not bad in principle, but why should there be only one stop? Why not make several such lines? Each order should correspond to a line, which is exactly implemented in MT-5, order lines can also be moved. So, why do we need this stop line?
For the fourth time, you may exit in a staircase without any problems:
Considering that on Friday and Saturday we all spent the whole forum wondering what kind of miracle MT-5 did to Sieg's score - first everyone was convinced it was him and not MT-5 - and then it was Sieg who looked at the rules, no wonder I took an interest in the matter. So superficial judgements can be wrong. And then, I'm not a clerk.
Here's a link to the forumhttp://www.onlinebroker.ru/forum/index.php?PAGE_NAME=user_post&UID=10200&mode=all
Apparently - VTB24 bank.
And here is a "bank employee" - it is not clear yet - maybe it's supposedly "Alexei Mikheev" https://www.onlinebroker.ru/forum/index.php?PAGE_NAME=profile_view&UID=6042 - but judging by the profile it is not clear whether this is a clerk or not.
The account was a demo account
I reread the original source, firstly, in order to recreate the history graphically does not need to load into eexels, etc., if you have an account number and invest (which the user) can use the Player trade based on the history of transactions
Secondly, the argument that placing stops on the entire position is not convenient, it is said to be necessary to copy stops, but this is done automatically when there is a position.
so the common principle of "you don't know how this button works, don't touch it" applies.
MQ has worked well enough on the interface to make it comfortable even for a beginner. And the autosubstitution of already existing position levels in a new order is an example of this. If you are not going to change stops, just leave them alone.
If you're not going to set stops at all when opening a new position, don't touch the zeros that are already there.
This issue has been raised on this form, not everyone is happy with the current situation: https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/5798.
It doesn't seem right to me to compare integrated stops, for example, in mt4 and mt5. After all there are many positions in mt4, and one in mt5.
I do not find the words that the classic scheme may solve the issue correctly. This scheme allows us to set only one thing (SL or TP) and if we set a Limit and a Stop order simultaneously, when one of them triggers, the other one will hang.
I understand that you will be surprised to learn that MetaTrader 5 has 8 types of rollovers, with only 2 types with over-opening positions and the other 6 with maintaining positions and swap field accrual.
And the bank itself chose the modes with position reopening.
I have clarified the issue, I confess that I was somewhat ignorant of the rollover theme. Rollovers in the legal sense are transactions which the bank carries out on behalf of the client. These transactions, along with the client's regular transactions, are submitted to the central bank. As you wrote, it was exactly our requirement that rollovers reopen the client's position. Accordingly, the notion of floating profit from the client's last transaction (not the rollover) in this sense is a virtual notion that has to be further calculated for the client's convenience. This does not exist now, and it is very inconvenient.
Well, as for the main issue that was discussed on the topic, it is clear to me. On the market, in world practice, in EBS, Reutres, trading systems of leading market makers, etc. there is no such thing as an order (stop-loss, take-profit) tied to a position/trade. Metaquotas think they can introduce concepts that don't exist in the market for their clients' convenience (like the locking topic before it). Personally, I and a lot of other people think that there is no such thing as convenience, only twisted logic. But because of our position we are considered as "illiterate traders", who due to our secular mindset do not understand all the advantages of the new approach. As they say, master is the boss. I will not touch this topic again.
And as for the main issue that was discussed on the topic, it's all clear to me. There is no such thing as an order (stop-loss, take-profit) linked to a position/trade in the market, in global practice, in EBS, Reutres, trading systems of leading market makers, etc. Metaquotas believe that they can introduce concepts that do not exist in the market for their clients' convenience (as was the case with locking before). Personally, I and a lot of other people think that there is no such thing as convenience.
As for me, I don't really like it when you have a stop loss in an entire position.
As for me, I really like that I don't have to place individual orders to close a position. For me, I really like not having to place individual orders to close a position.
As they say, if you don't want to use it, don't use it.
Our client is not illiterate, he has previously worked for a year in our own trading system, with those very as you say "terrible" OCO and IF Done. He also, of course, had experience with MT-4. And the hybrid didn't really work out.
And as for the issue at hand, I understand at this point you will bend your line and that's it, we did this and that's that, eat what's served. Yes, monopoly is bad. Well here on the forum, that's your job, I understand.
If only you had at least moved the volume and stops with profits far away in the order submission window in MT-5. And you would sign it not just "Stop Loss", but "Stop Loss on the entire open position volume". Same thing about Take Profit. But it's still bullshit. I have already written you how it should ideally be done. All active stops and profits are orders too, and should be shown in the orders section.
At least read the title of your "competent" client's thread " Stops in question: classic limit order + stops integrated into position".
A classic limit order is made with a tekprofit and a stoploss is made with a stopper. One reading of the title could have stopped there.
Just because a stop loss and take profit are placed at the prices that were entered in the "stop loss" and "take profit" fields, what is wrong with that? In these fields you specify the price, whatever the price is, that's where they go. The price is entered, not the points. If they were entering points, they would argue over whether they should be entered from the price of the request or from the price of the aggregate position. I believe that the query price is more correct, because this is a terminal, not a personal calculator. If we need to put the stoploss somewhere else, calculate it any way you like and put it anywhere you like.
There has been a lot of noise from nothing in this thread, so I haven't raised the question before, but the idea of asking has been buzzing since the beginning of the thread.
As a matter of fact: this mechanism with stops is not well thought out for stock order execution.
Here is an example: I open a demo in AlpariFS where there is on-exchange execution and stops are set by additional order but there are no stops in the order window.
I opened an order, changed/deleted it and placed one more order again with no stops.
It turns out that during exchange execution the stops are completely wiped out, this is a dangerous situation.