NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 33
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
ZS - apart from the parabolic, I also use Levelours and demarc lines...
:-( Couldn't attach pictures...
:-( Couldn't attach the drawings...
Actually, I don't have to, it's God's will.
I keep asking for an example of a locking strategy, there hasn't been one in this thread. There was a list of positives from using locs, but no strategy. And there couldn't have been, because it's impossible. In short: look for the fools in the mirror.
You've been given examples, but with stubbornness worthy of the best, you don't acknowledge them.
There was an example with a probabilistic overlap between two opposing strategies. You said "everything is possible without locks". And you didn't bother to think about HOW it can be done without locks. They tried to explain to you that it's technically ugly. I, for example, have even already sketched out the fish of strategy crossover and seen that it works very poorly on this platform (MT). We need to keep a list of virtual orders, redirect all calls and so on. And losses on slippage, requotes will be more than losses on lock.
So these two strategies together are ONE STRATEGY, which ends up working for both downside and upside.
Yes, you can do it without locks, but it's BAD and NOT profitable.
And you're proving that everyone needs to eat cactus, patamachta some body out there decided so and personally timbo has the same opinion. That obviously doesn't make you any more popular.
You have been given examples, but with stubbornness worthy of the best use, you do not acknowledge them.
There was an example with a probabilistic overlap between two opposing strategies. You said "everything is possible without locks". And you didn't bother to think about HOW it can be done without locks. They tried to explain to you that it's technically ugly. I, for example, have even already sketched out the fish of strategy crossover and seen that it works very poorly on this platform (MT). We need to keep a list of virtual orders, redirect all calls and so on. And losses on slippage, requotes will be more than losses on lock.
So these two strategies together are ONE strategy that ends up working on both downside and upside.
Yes, you can do it without locks, but it's BAD and NOT profitable.
And you're proving that everyone needs to eat cactus, patamachta some body out there decided so and personally timbo has the same opinion. That doesn't make you any more popular.
So you admit there were no locking strategies in the thread and you apologise for attacking my memory?
So you admit there were no locking strategies in the thread and apologise for hitting on my memory?
I just reminded you of an example of such a strategy. Are you going to argue picking on words and letters? >> then I'll pass.
>>>I keep asking for an example of a locking strategy, they haven't been in this thread.
---
roughly the following - (in short) - uses martini and lock...
Looking at the last 2-3 days swing of movement --> average / 2 = this will be the step size... lots 1-1-2-4Lock - open both ways....
- close all positions by Friday
- it is recommended to block and wait for 2 hours before "important news".
....
Now think a bit about what would have happened if instead of a lock, you had just closed a position and opened another one a couple of hours later.
So you admit there were no locking strategies in the thread and apologise for hitting on my memory?
I highlighted there in a previous post.
I just reminded you of an example of such a strategy. Are you going to argue picking on words and letters? >> then I'll pass.
Define the definitions. A locking strategy makes meaningful use of locks. If you have two strategies in the same account, but each opens what it wants on its own, it is NOT a locking strategy. It is not a strategy at all.
Loki in MT is a relic of the lot system, it's ugly. Keeping track of each lot individually is dumb. I agree that without them it would be difficult to use multiple strategies at the same time in MT. In MT5 everything will be human-style without lots and therefore without lots. With lots the 6th point is going well, I agree with that too, the balance line looks better, even if Kolya is already on the doorstep.
But locking strategies are impossible, don't be self-defeating and tell tales about the art of breaking lots.
Define the definitions. A locking strategy makes meaningful use of locks. If you have two strategies in the same account, but each opens what it wants on its own, it is NOT a locking strategy. It is not a strategy at all.
Loki in MT is a relic of the lot system, it's ugly. Keeping track of each lot individually is dumb. I agree that without them it would be difficult to use multiple strategies at the same time in MT. In MT5 everything will be human-style without lots and therefore without lots. With lots the 6th point is going well, I agree with that too, the balance line looks better, even if Kolya is already on the doorstep.
But locking strategies are impossible, don't be self-deceived and tell tales about the art of breaking lots.
This is an example of a locking strategy. There is a locking area, it has complex boundaries. There are characteristics that affect the geometry and area of the locking area. The locking area covers the "elevated" areas, from which the quotes tend to "roll" to one side or another.
And these locks are not deliberately destroyed, it happens naturally by the boundaries of the stops.
P.S. Heh, the logic is iron: "your strategy is not a strategy, but my strategy is a strategy!" :)
>>> Now think for a while.
>>>Think for yourself... :-)
I have a locking c-ma....
at the beginning of the series opens "2 hands" - one Buy (1-1-2-L) another Sell (1-1-2-L) - and while the rocking is going on - both "hands" bring +++