Question on working with stops: classic on limiters + stops integrated into position - page 9
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'm already writing from home, the IP will be different.
Let's put it this way, my forum account is registered to a corporate address, was it difficult for you to see my profile? And from there it's easy to find out who I am if you want to, as I have some positions on the internet. For my part, I also do not know with whom I am communicating, maybe there are just people sitting here who are not aware of our requests to MT developers, but simply defend the position of the organization because that's their job.
Renat ,
what is surprising to me in this discussion is that a certain community takes the opposite position to that taken by our customer community. That is, there is an absolute conviction that you are right on this forum and from our forum there is an absolute conviction that we are right. Would you like me to provide a link on our forum and have a bunch of people flood in here to support me? We are certain that something is a bug and you claim it's a fix. But what I do know is that we are losing customers to the underdevelopment of MT-5 because customers, seeing the flaws of MT-5, prefer to stay on MT-4.
It's the same issue with rollovers. Rollovers, aka swaps, are not deals, you know that? Nevertheless the terminal fixes profit every time you swap. 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 without distorting the floating profit. Therefore, in the menu of the History section, we need to create not only items Orders, Deals, Orders and Deals, but also a Rollovers item and exclude the Rollovers from Deals. This is a clear request to the developer on the client side, isn't it?
So, once again, just so you don't get mad. You guys have made a cool trading system, Russia can be proud that Russian developers have made a program that has conquered the world. And we are happy to have even the MT-5 that we have (I repeat, we cannot use MT-4 in principle). But we can do better, and we know better what our clients need.
Let's put it this way, my forum account is registered to a corporate address, did you have trouble looking at my profile? And from there it's easy to find out who I am if you want to, as I have some positions on the internet. ...
So how can you tell from your eloquent profile about you and your positions on the Internet:
I don't know how the defendant will react, but to me, that's the kind of post you should have started with.
A post that is quite adequately sharpened to address the issue.
Otherwise we all know, I am a representative, here is the mandate... :o) what a circus.
> 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?
By the way, I've found another bug: a buy stop order is not dragged below the price. Although it should be dragged and transformed into a buy limit. The order volume and direction do not change when dragging.
> 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 trailing stops is good 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?
By the way, I've found another bug: a buy stop order is not dragged below the price. Although it should be dragged and transformed into a buy limit. The order volume and direction do not change due to dragging.
Drag and drop is the process of order modification and we can only change an order from a bystop to a bylimate by deleting the existing order and setting a new one.
Hence the impossibility of this operation.
I told you a long time ago what I see, I have no internal mechanisms to track which networks someone writes what from.
I watch the stylistics, it tracks the author better than any ip definition.
Apparently, the correct conclusion is that Sieg and yarzar are one and the same.
Apparently, the correct conclusion is that Sieg and yarzar are one and the same.
.... I myself have been pushing for the introduction of MT in our bank for many years ...
Are you asking us?
"you're a fucking joke" (c).
I told you a long time ago what I see, I don't have internal mechanisms to track which networks someone is posting from.
I watch the stylistics, it tracks the author better than any ip definition.
HZZ wanted to bring another picture that was visible that the current author logged on the forum for ~ 8 minutes after the ban last author.
ZZZY Imagine the situation the person gets banned on a third-party forum, applies to the bank and complained, then the clerk immediately registers and "I am a friend of that alena and I can dance, I studied with her in the same class, but I will dance," continues exactly the same song, with the same failure to understand the problem and the same turn of phrase. I think this is nonsense, any clerk will excuse himself referring to anything, as long as his shift is over while the client understands.
That's funny, really. Thanks for the positive vibe :)
Given that on Friday and Saturday we all spent the whole forum wondering what kind of miracle MT-5 did to Sieg's account - and at first everyone thought it was him and not MT-5 - and then it was Sieg who decided to look at the rules, it is not surprising that I took an interest in the question. So superficial judgements can be wrong. And then, I'm not a clerk.
It's hilarious, really. Thanks for the positive vibes :)
Given that on Friday and Saturday we all spent the whole forum wondering what kind of miracle MT-5 did to Sieg's score, and first everyone thought it was him and not MT-5, and then it was Sieg who decided to look 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.
We're having fun here, as they say, "Well, let's go do the paperwork."
Maybe you can still throw me a link to the mystery forum.
SZS really want to look at the original.