Why have subscriptions been banned on the grounds of "too high a yield" ? - page 29
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
To demo responsibility I agree..... ))
Go ahead, answer it.)
Actually it's not even "manipulation" but overflow, it's a shame. If the simulator was close to a live one and the total profit of the first account was greater than the loss of the second, then I would approve such an undertaking.
Weird man, well, yes, it's a demonstration of the essence. a test toy.
and you want to get the money for free? :))))
Why "for free"? I don't see the point.
If you trade a pattern that exists on the market, it certainly loses some weight when it becomes public, but why do you see "for free", even simple wagons are strictly profitable on large periods.
But in this case the type of pattern lies inside the demo simulator. Either the overflow which is senseless by definition or demo manipulation which is also senseless because the feedback mechanism is not natural but simulated on the model of a video game. That is, it is just a waste of time.
Your bid goes into the stack and may even be one of the best price bids. If you have access to the cup, you can notice an increase in volume on the corresponding gang after placing a pending order. If you do not have access to the market, try a simple rule: from one account you will put a limit order to the spread, and from the other account you will observe the narrowing of the spread on the corresponding side. If that's not enough, you can open at market price from the third account.
Don't rush to write answers, no one is persecuting you for ignorance/misunderstanding ( I asked similar questions myself recently), better understand ECN (two-way auction) pricing, then ECN/STP, and then draw conclusions about shame and usefulness.
Your bid gets into the stack and may even become one of the best bids at a price. If you have access to the putter, you will notice an increase in volume in the corresponding bank after the pending order is placed. If you do not have access to the stack, it's simple: use one account to place a Limit order into the spread, while the other account will show a narrowing of the spread on the corresponding side. If this is not enough, you can open at the market price from the third account.
Don't rush to write answers, no one is persecuting you for ignorance/misunderstanding ( I asked similar questions myself recently), better understand ECN (two-way auction) pricing, then ECN/STP, and then draw conclusions about shame and usefulness.
That's clear to me, but thanks for the reminder anyway. About the disgrace, I agree I didn't quite get it right, I've swiped.
I don't doubt that limiters and marketplaces from REAL clients come into the demo ECN system and interact with those that weigh in the cup, but I'm not sure that absolutely all requests are of such origin and there are no algorithm generated ones in this flow, rather I'm sure that there are many more generated than those that came from clients. Otherwise clients of one brokerage company would move the market in their own way, it's like in the song "the train has gone its way and someone went his own way", but the demo ECN should sort of resemble the real one and the real clients of one brokerage company are a drop in the ocean, so the ocean should be added to the drop, but how can we do it? Only if we simulate with an algorithm a lot of pseudo requests. And if I were in place of such simulators in DC I would not just simulate them adequately to real price movement, but inside such simulations I would hide different obvious "structures" that have statistical prediction power, but have nothing in common with reality.
The call to "create liquidity " is therefore tantamount to "drain liquidity", arbitrage and HFT on forex is only profitable for DCs to engage in on a home PC, with amateur knowledge of the market.
This is just PR for new tailoring kitchens.
I don't doubt that limiters and marketplaces from REAL clients come into the ECN demo system and interact with those that weigh in the glass, but I am not sure that absolutely all requests are of such origin and there are no algorithm-generated ones in this flow, rather I am sure that there are many more generated than those that came from clients. Otherwise clients of one brokerage company would move the market in their own way, it's like in the song "the train has gone its way and someone went his own way", but the demo ECN should sort of resemble the real one and the real clients of one brokerage company are a drop in the ocean, so the ocean should be added to the drop, but how can we do it? Only if we simulate with an algorithm a lot of pseudo requests. And if I were in the place of such simulators in DC I would not just simulate them adequately to real price movement, but inside such simulations I would hide different obvious "structures" that have statistical prediction power, but have nothing in common with reality.
Why so complicated) market orders from demos do not execute orders from the real stack. That's why they won't move the demo market by more than a point)))
Why so complicated) market orders from the demo do not execute orders from the real market. That's why they won't move the demo market by more than a point)))
It's a bad simulator then. If we do not see how it works then why the prices are different on the ECN demo and real? Then the sense of such a simulation disappears.
Just at deviations above some threshold generated by the simulator itself volumes to compensate for the shift, the real price as an attractor for the demo. So it seems to me.
Assumption: Demo ECN/STP stack consists of demo-ECN and demo-STP. Demo-ECN works like ECN on demo accounts (hence the small difference in prices with real), while demo-STP seems to be simply broadcast from real STP without regard to execution, creating an impenetrable wall for demo market orders.
The call to "create liquidity " is therefore identical to "drain liquidity", arbitrage and HFT on forex on a home PC, with amateur knowledge of the market, is only beneficial to DCs.
Shall we generalise further?
"Any call to "trade forex the X way" is identical to the call to "drain forex the X way", trading forex on a home PC, with amateur knowledge of the market, is only profitable for DCs." (c) perepel
;)
This is just PR for new tailoring kitchens.
If you perceive it that way - it means you understand that it does not work at all in the "old" kitchen. So you have seen that these "new" ones are much better (for traders).
No? Justify it if you disagree.