NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 11
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
There are five one-way poses. Pyramiding. No TP. When we're ripe, we open a total position against. And don't get sick of closing all those five individually. Yes, this is a technical feature of MT. But it's better with a lock than without it, isn't it? It would be even better, if instead of entering the lock MT would close those positions manually. But it does not do that. Therefore, now it is better to exit with lock than without it. And how it will be in MT5, we will see.
And the total and 5 previous ones should not be closed of course...
Which is exactly what I needed to prove. Lock is just psychology.
And the case of having two strategies on the same account, trading independently (medium and short term) has already been mentioned.
And you can't trade without psychology, can you?
Technically, it is not necessary to move away from NFA brokers if one wants to keep the locking option with two independent strategies: for example, buying cable locally is equivalent to opening two different positions on EURGBP and EURUSD. Of course, we lose more on spreads, and the product of the sum cannot be substituted, - but still it is at least a solution.
2 gip: Do you generally reply to a post in parts without reading a single letter further?
2 Zet1972: If the trade is manual, then yes, there is no way.
And you can't trade without psychology, can you?
My advisers strongly disagree with you.
And the example of two EAs, one of which is a long-term strategy and the other a short-term one, we prefer to ignore?
Not "just psychology" then.
If your account has 2 EAs with different strategies, you actually have one strategy. We should recalculate inside it.
I.e. if the long term strategy is take by 2 lots and there is no hint for closing, and the short term one lot for sell, after recalculation you get a partial close of 1 lot, after the closing command for short term.
You're splitting the buy 1 lot.
2 gip: Вы принципиально отвечаете на пост по частям, не читая ни одной буквы дальше?
2 Zet1972: if the trade is manual, then yes, it can't.
So the conclusion is inescapable - lock is useful, when trading manually it helps psychologically, when working with Expert Advisors - several systems can work on one pair at the same time.
My advisers strongly disagree with you.
So let them on the forum and let them speak out :)
If your account has 2 EAs with different strategies, you actually have one strategy. You have to recalculate within it.
I don't think so! It is easier, simpler and more reliable to have two or three simple EAs working on one account than one summarised - abstruse and "contrived"...
Если на счету 2 советника с разными стратегиями то фактически у Вас одна стратегия . Внутри нее и надо делать соответствующий пересчет .
Т.е. например если долгосрочная стоит в бай 2 лота и нет намеков на закрытие а краткосрочка просит селл на 1 лот после пересчета Вы получаете частичное закрытие обьемом 1 лот, после команды на закрытие краткосрочки
Вы доливаетесь бай 1 лот.
The issue has already been dealt with in detail in several places. Technically it is possible to implement EA synchronisation, but it requires extra effort and there may be implementation errors.