You're using a "lock" - page 9

New comment
 
Urain:

UZZ: lock has positive qualities, for example in your dealing the level of freezing is big enough, and you pipsing with a target less than the level of freezing, then the lock helps you, you open one position, caught profit less than the level of freezing, locked, when you crawl behind the level of freezing lock can destroy (in aggressive pipsing depending on the situation with double benefit), you can even destroy one more position instead of one closed (such an endless lock :)
This is a positive lot - it is a kind of unfixed takeprofit. But when a trader places a tray against a losing position, this is a frozen loss. In any case, before it is opened, it must be zeroed out by additional positions opened in the correct direction. That is, you may not lock, but simply close and open in the right direction. It will be the same, but without freezing the collateral to maintain the dangling loc.
 

Personally, in my opinion, the main problem with the inability to open differently directed orders for one currency in MT5 is the complication of parallel testing of several strategies. For example, in MT4 no one is stopping us from depositing several virtual millions, opening dozens of windows of one currency pair and using different EAs for each of them. If the mages are unique, all will get along perfectly well on one account and later one can filter results in excel, if one wants to analyze.

However, if I'm not mistaken, for these tricks, we would need 1) physical clones of terminals running in parallel, 2) a separate account for each, 3) enough power on each machine (or several) to pull the whole bunch.

The same side effects will be for long term traders and parallel scalping on the pullbacks. It is clear that the actual difference is not much bigger than if we close the "long term", catch the pullback and then open a new one after the flat. But in practice, the conditional risk will be somewhat higher due to the loss of a good entry point that has already entered the breakeven. So we can estimate the probability that the price will break through the level and the probability that it will go further after the pullback and flat, and get the approximate risk of losing some profit in case of reversal. Or, for example, if the strategy assumes closing at the second touch (or approach) to the "probed" level, it may not always be justified to close at the first signs of a pullback. And it will not make sense to open a new position at every pullback - especially for beginners with a very small deposit. That is, the difference between not obtained profit and obtained loss compensated by profit, purely mathematically maybe, but taking into account the human factor and limited funds that people are willing to invest in training, the difference will be at least in how long will "live" a training deposit, and therefore how much experience in real trading they will be able to squeeze into these miserable 1000 cents :)

On the other hand, absence of possibility to open different orders deprives the trader of an opportunity to do anything at all until there is a "valuable" position which is too early to close - except maybe to continue multiplying it (which is often reasonable only when there is a pronounced long-term trend).

In short, it may not be crucial for intraday trading, but it may create unnecessary obstacles for various mixed trading styles. And the main thing is that the meaning of these barriers is not especially clear, since they can easily clone a client and open a second account. We could understand if we didn't have the technology to implement differently directed orders but it was already implemented in MT4.

 

pips:

Everyone is extremely opposed to the use of a lock, not just as a stop loss, but in using it at all.


We do not use locks as a way to close a position, but to open a new one in the opposite direction. This is just a consequence of the separate management of positions by different systems. The advantage is the ease of accounting, disadvantage is the extra margin compared to keeping an aggregate position for each instrument (like mt5).


In general, it's not the lock itself that is convenient, but the way of maintaining separate positions. If you are running a combined one, you need to write a module that will remember which system opened how much and when. In MT4 it is done automatically on the server level, which is convenient and more reliable than separate accounting. And as a consequence, there may be loops.

 
 
Zeleniy:
Can you organise an article with MQ to dispel the myth of locs once and for all. Many times discussed, but people have their own imagination, can prove theoretically with practice.
This is not possible unfortunately. As long as MT4 will exist there will be a "battle" around locks.
 
Lone_Irbis:

Personally, in my opinion, the main problem with the inability to open differently directed orders for one currency in MT5 is the complication of parallel testing of several strategies. For example, in MT4 no one is stopping us from depositing several virtual millions, opening dozens of windows of one currency pair and using different EAs for each of them. If the mages are unique, all will get along perfectly well on one account and later one can filter results in excel, if one wants to analyze.

Here, if I'm not mistaken, such tricks would require 1) physical clones of terminals running in parallel, 2) a separate account for each, 3) enough power for each machine (or several) to pull the whole bunch.

Theoretically, we may get out of this situation if we have an account with a broker with doubled currency pairs (the same symbols, but with suffixes or prefixes).

A simple algorithm in this case will allow opening positions in both directions.

123456789
New comment