Who has already tried the Signals subscription to get on the tail of ATC 2012 participants? - page 18
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
This is more like very good advice for traders to all people.
To understand reality, you need to remove yourself from the board for a while and watch the world around you work without you. A very simple and effective eye-opening method.
After each conversation with you, it seems that you are dealing exclusively with some faceless human mass, which floats in some distant ether and enthusiastically and silently awaits every new "epochal" innovation.
In my reality, there is no gray mass, but 50-70 enthusiasts who fill this forum with content and constantly wondering why the next innovation is almost impossible to use because of good intentions.
Another illusionist. Yura, I have a lot of respect for you too, but you are also wrong in your reasoning. The purpose of the service is not the synchronization of profits. The purpose of the service is the synchronization of signals. This is the first thing.
Second: if you calculate the profit/losses, they will be strictly proportional. From the point of synchronization. Second: if you calculate the profit/losses, they will be strictly proportional (within the spread).
Before you receive and execute signals, you need to be clearly synchronised with the master account on positions.
That's why the first step is replication of master account positions, and replication only when we can enter as good as the master positions. That is, we do not synchronise if at least one master position is on the plus side.
This is done to protect the trader's account - he/she should not take a position with a loss, when it is in the plus on the Wizard. Because the master can close his profitable trades in profit, we cannot guarantee this for the subordinate.
Highlighted in bold the main points. Well, as for multicurrency, Renat is right here too, because if there are related pairs in at least one common currency, the logic when trying to enter trades asynchronously with a master will be broken and the result is unpredictable. At the very least, you can enter trades only if there is a cumulative loss on the wizard's positions. Otherwise, the Subscriber will never get lucky. On the other hand, it is impossible to quickly open a pack of trades, so it's better to refuse from such an idea than to make a mess.
Of course, it limits possibilities to support multicurrency Expert Advisors via the service. But there is nothing we can do about it.
Renat is right.
Let the signal provider have an open position. Stop Loss N pips, Take Profit M pips.
Assume that the Subscriber has exactly synchronized and entered and exited the market together with the Signals Provider. In this case, the Subscriber's profit and loss will be the same as those of the Provider.
is also a mistake.
The purpose of the service is to synchronise positions, not signals.
The purpose of the service is not to synchronize profits. The purpose of the service is to synchronize signals.
Since there are not many readers who understand the plain text, I will explain it once again.
Haste, neglecting clean entry, greed and recklessness we will not support, as it is to us that all the negativity and claims of offended followers will return.
The most important purpose of our service is to prevent stupid losses and protect traders from systematic losses. This goal is a hundred times more important than any technical desires or requirements of anyone.
In other words, nothing beats protecting the account and preventing mistakes. The issue is closed.
The matter is closed.
also a mistake.
The purpose of the service is to synchronise positions, not signals.
For me, there is no difference. An open position is a signal.
All my EAs work exactly on this logic. I don't place "trading" stops (i.e. stops that are designed to lock/profits/losses), only technical ones (in case of a break in the link).
This is not because "I've seen stops in my grave", but because it is logical - an EA putting a trade stop order needs to have a forecast for the time of that order triggering, i.e. for a time point that hasn't yet come, and probably will not come very soon. But my EA is much better at forecasting the nearest future, rather than the distant (maybe someone has different results?). I therefore open/modify/cut/reverse positions using market orders only.
// I have voiced this logic of mine many times on both forums as I think it makes perfect sense.
That is why, by the way, my EAs do not have any problems with restoring trade after disconnections (no matter what the reason), because they live strictly in the present time. Once started, the EA makes a forecast from the market in the present time and sets recommendations for the trading part, in terms of "what positions should be in the market now to get the maximum profit in the near future". The market driver executes these recommendations by synchronizing existing positions with the recommended ones.
A simple and perfect scheme, I highly recommend it.
And there is an error here. The purpose of the service is to synchronise the master's account dynamics with the master. To do this, it is sufficient to synchronise the net position.
Try to quantise in time. The results of master and slave will be identical.
For me, it's easier to adjust than to fight if it's not personal.
They don't want to make concessions, who cares why. If they are right, well done. If not, the market will punish them.
As for the masters, a tip: stop trading at 3 a.m. for systems with 10-minute trades.
The clients' entry time will not affect the synchronousness of their equity, this is a fact. Anyone can buy a unit of a mutual fund not only at the moment of the fund opening, and from the next day the money of the new client will move on equal terms with the rest.