ECN, order execution, aggregators, liquidity. - page 3
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
No. It will be conditional, like a stop-limit for example.
do they appear immediately in the market or are they also executed as stop-limits?
Interesting to see a screenshot of the stack where there are limit orders worse than the market)) During trading, not at pre-market. Not sure if there is a pre-market mechanism on ECN (setting the first price after the break), but that's another question.
I do not understand the algorithm of order execution when limit orders may close with slippage. It is possible if they are executed as market orders and the liquidity providers are not who they pretend to be.) That is, they are not bidders who put limit orders both ways in the betting market, but ordinary dealers (like DCs) who offer their bid and ask, and you simply execute both client limits and marquets on them. PLs are multiple + client limits. In this case, if there was a gap in the PL quotes and you missed the client limit, it will be executed at the new price after the gap. In essence, it is like a market. I.e. purely DC execution on gaps. Hence, there is positive slippage in limit orders. Combination of several brokerage companies into one network + possibility for clients to trade with each other.
I understand that there is an unquenchable desire to put a stock market regulation on forex. A limit order in its very name says that it is price-limited. The market is not price-limited. If one proceeds from the postulate that limits should not slide into the plus, then it is not a limit, and if one proceeds from the premise that a limit limits something, and that is its main task, then slippage does not tell you anything.
You can send a limit order to a liquidity provider in the market and it may not be visible in the market, but it is still a limit order and according to the specification and documentation it passes as a limit order. I think there is a battle of terms again, such as whether a forex company can be called a broker or not.
I understand that there is an unquenchable desire to put stock exchange regulations on the forex market. A limit order in its very name says that it is price-limited. The market is not price-limited. If one proceeds from the postulate that limits should not slide into the plus, then it is not a limit, and if one proceeds from the premise that a limit limits something, and that is its main task, then slippage does not tell you anything.
You can send a limit order to a liquidity provider in the market and it may not be visible in the market, but it is still a limit order and according to the specification and documentation it passes as a limit order. I think there is a terminology quarrel again, like whether a forex company may be called a broker or not.
terminology is not the main thing. A single settlement and execution centre with anonymous orders, like on the stock exchange (and hardly ECN :)) eliminates conflicts of interest and guarantees execution of orders by an independent party. I.e. no problems like PL claiming that your clients are getting cheeky and making a lot of money. No two-way friction - all through the exchange/ECN.
What you are doing is certainly better than a pure dealer scheme, but a lot depends on turnover. If there are a lot of clients, then it is interesting, if there are few, then it is just trading with several DCs on one account. imha
for thought.
I've had people ask me via email if it's my account that's so popular at Signals right now. As if I know how to rivet interest....
Always very happy to see someone else's success. In this case it would have been fine, I have nothing against averaging. It was only the blatant lies that upset me. And even more frustrating that in addition to the incomprehension of the liquor, they don't even see the almost obvious oddities. It is not my business to convict someone of a lie. But in this case I will do so as an example of minimal analysis.
We go to the website of the local government:
there (and elsewhere) it claims that the manager has earned and cashed out $650K.
Here is a bit more detail:
The first thing that immediately strikes the eye is that the profit has no cents. Any algotrader knows what TickValue is. And that $profit on the same AUDNZD can never be round, even at 100 lots.
I've already checked it before the date when all trades in the manager's statement above were closed.
Here is the statement of another real account:
Wow, how the trades coincide with the BIG account. One to one. The only difference is 1,000 times the lot size. This gives one more reason to be skeptical. After all, to open 100 lots at a time on AUDNZD is no small problem. I know it very well, because I know the specifics of execution of large Sizes on my own skin. It turns out that two accounts are executed at the same price. I.e. there is no slippage of 100 lots. No problem, maybe the manager's broker did not withdraw anything, taking huge risks on itself. Broker's risks.
And we see that the balance is exactly 1000 times different from the balance that was given by the manager in the picture from his LARGE account.
So now everything is in its place. The manager has taken his real account, and the editor increased the lots and profits exactly 1000 times, posing it as a real state. That is, he openly cheated.
This is direct evidence of the manager's fraud. There are, of course, indirect ones. At 650K profit no one will withdraw a few dollars, ask for a $300 loan from his subscribers and do other nonsense. I'm very familiar with the psychology of people who actually make that kind of money.
From a marketing point of view, everything has been done quite competently. I have attracted a huge army of subscribers who have done excellent advertising. Opened PAMM-account, where they have placed several hundreds of $K based on this advertising.
So, all in all, normal. As for the trading itself, I have no complaints. I have no claims about the trading itself.
The only conclusion is that this is not a professional trader at all. Only amateurs may make such a stupid mistake. Not knowing TickValue - this proves it once again. The broker of the manager knows about this fraud 100%, but is silent. Everything is on his conscience, if there is any.
Perfectly understand that the effect of this post will be the opposite. That is, it is an advertisement for this manager. Well, that's human nature.
Well, to remove another inadequate accusation of self-PR. I will say that I am trading in the red. It's a phase. Anyway, it's all bullshit.
SZ http://www.forexfactory.com/showthread.php?p=7008933#post7008933
h ttps://www.mql5.com/ru/signals/13383
After playing around with ECN on btc-e, I have come to a conclusion:
1. MT4 does not withdraw limit orders from its market cup into the exchange cup (I think the same is true for other platforms).
2. all the pending orders are executed at the market including limit (buy limit/ sell limit), since limit orders (buy limit/ sell limit) are not output to the stock market and the only way to output them is a market order
3. with a limit (buy limit/sell limit) you can enter the market by placing an order at the price of the opposite bank, but not higher/lower.
4. you can play with the spread using limit orders (buy limit/sell limit), but within the spread that is traded
5. Due to the fact that the limits (buy limit/ sell limit) are not deducted, the exchange does not see the bid and ask which is in MT4
Assumption: if the opposite bid has gone above/below the limit which is in MT4 and at the limiters level there are no bids in the exchange glass, then most likely the limiters will be executed with positive slippage.
ZZU: 6. if the volume of the best gang is less than the minimum allowable lot in MT4, then the ask or bid in the terminal is drawn on the next exchange gang or cup in MT4
You said that the bank can increase the spread in case of a toxic situation, how can it do that?
Because the spread is formed by the best gangs, and to increase the spread you have to keep them at a certain distance, but there is more than one bank on the floor.
Will the bank buy the gangs to keep the spread at a certain value just to bait someone?
If there are many suppliers and if lucrative toxic traffic is spread across them, you can work for a long time, maybe forever. Either way, there will always be more losers. If suddenly there are fewer of them, the Banks will widen the spreads for everyone.