NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 24
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's point 7. I agree. That's gut.
Did I miss something? Where are all the items listed?
True, all of the above only applies to manual trading (or interfering with machine operation).
That's what I'm talking about.
And what are the arguments for lock in EA? Now I am just curious.
None. Except for a break in communication for such a long period of time. Provided that the Expert Advisor is on the user's computer and not on the server executing the orders. The pending orders are placed on the server.
where medium term is retained but the TS keeps picking in small trends
To me it's "multi-directional positions", but in the terminal it SEEMS like a LOCK.
We will open different terminals/accounts/DCs - depending on what level and how it will "lock".
Amazing, Composter. You didn't notice Timbo's boorishness, only my reaction to yet another guru? That's really...
Traders gurus are ridiculed immediately, after the first post. On trading-related forums... All because those who live there pay for everything with their money, and they have already tested everything on the market... Money somehow does not give a reason to read nonsense. Nauseating.
You're a good programmer, Composter.
where medium term is retained but the TS keeps picking in small trends
For me it is "multidirectional positions", but in the terminal it SEEMS like a Lock.
Let's open different terminals/accounts/DC - depending on what level and how it will "lock".
Yes it can be seen as that.
You are right that it can be seen as the work of 2 or 3 or more systems
---
If it's technically banned, there will be no such a convenience.
It is your right to think so, just as it is my right not to accept your opinion...
If only because I've been following my opinion for a little over five years.
*
Um... I was going to finish my post, but I got very curious about the mythical self-deception.
Reveal your variant for example in terms of MM optimisation. And point out where I'm deceiving myself.
Moreover, there are points 4 and 5 in that MM variant, but it's work ... and control...
IMHO
You mm put over the strategy.
I think we should first close all the issues with the strategy and now, taking into account its nature, deal with MM.
Any strategy based on something (if all the issues are closed by its logic) comes down to issuing buy, sell, close commands.
We got the MM - work. TP let's say 100
What if... halfway through, we put a lock-pause on half of the open pose?
Counting...
1. We guessed the direction, the position went in the profit, the rest was forgotten and deleted.
Good.
The strategy did not give a Sell command at this price for the sake of "mm optimization".
This time we got lucky - the lock tool was not needed.
2. Prices declined, the pause was caught, but then they left in the right direction,
at the end it took a profit, though less.
Good.
Not good . You lost ( didn't get) 62% of profits on your trade and have to be satisfied with 38%. And your strategy didn't even suggest this to you.
3. Prices have broken through the stop-loss. The put, or rather opposite one, was closed either at the stop level of the first one
or took a bit more on inertia... Gut?
Gut!!!
Not good.
Your strategy will close with a stop more seldom than to take profit. It is a strategy, and the loss in the form of missed profit will be greater than the modest compensation received by halving the volume by 25 or a bit.
more ("by inertia") items
IMHO
You put mm over strategy
I think you need to close all the issues with the strategy first and now with the nature of it deal with the mm
Ahem... please! read before jumping to conclusions about something you don't understand...
1. You may go back to the drawing on the market and use the lock as a tool, not as a mere pretext.
Lock is a tool, exactly the same as, for example, s-l or t-p.
2. My example with MM.
Well, it is clear that the opening of the main position is not just for fun, although it is possible.
And for example based on the signal of the trading system, which in turn is based on your strategy.
Revise your calculations again...
Better yet, reproduce them in a more proof than my words: in the terminal
Perhaps you'll see a lot more clearly... ;)
Amazing, Composter. You didn't notice Timbo's boorishness, just my reaction to another guru? Well, really...
I noticed everything.
And it was your posts that caused the reaction.
You're a good programmer, Composter.
You shouldn't have said that, Helen. You had something to say, why did you stop?
Virtual orders are already implemented in MT5. The lack of a loca there is not a problem at all. We do not need to modify the system, we can work with virtual orders which are stored on the MT5 server in the same way as in MT4.
I have no doubt that it is a solvable task for the developers of the platform. The only question is the timing. Here is the prohibition of lots, and when will MT5?
Ahem... please! read before jumping to conclusions about something you don't understand...
1. You can't be sure of that, but you can't be sure of what's going on in the game.
Lock is a tool, exactly the same as, for example, s-l or t-p.
IMHO
I disagree. Lock is neither a strategy nor a tactic, but it's not a tool either.
Lock is a condition
This is a situation when there is a counter-open order
>> Lock is a feeling of not knowing what is going to happen next.