NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 36
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
Then what is it for, I'm sorry?
Excuse me, on the upper chart or on the lower chart? I don't see "more than double" profits there.
And in general, clarity of mind is clarity of presentation. All you've shown so far is fuzzy charts and mysterious puffing of cheeks.
1) And on my monitor the graphs are "left" and "right", although it may depend on the browser.
2) gorby777 didn't write about "profitability", he wrote about "profitability".
P.S. This argument sounds like a religious one.
P.S. This argument sounds like a religious one.
Not by any means.
Opponents of locs at least have some mathematical justification for their position.
Proponents' arsenal -- pictures, cheeks and "dumb yourself". :)
Not by any means.
Opponents of locke have at least some mathematical justification for their position.
Supporters have pictures, cheeks and "you're dumb" in their arsenal. :)
For Swetten. On the upper chart with a fixed lot 0.1 the profit for two and a half months is 1100 c.u. at the initial deposit of 10000 c.u. WITHOUT LOCK.
On the lower chart it was 2400 during the same period. Same Expert Advisor with BATTERY
I didn't start the rubbish thing. The kissing thing, too.
My maths is in the Expert Advisor's code and its result is in the picture.
Puff your cheeks? On the forum? What is the point?
The arsenal of supporters -- pictures, cheeks and "yourself dumb". :)
Why not?
plus loca (where no extra margin is taken) - several advisors can work :)
0.01 lot may be in operation. open the other side 0.02. once 0.02 has worked out, close without exiting the 0.01 position. Now we have to close... open... ...close and open again.
This will not work with the cancellation of the locks.
Not by any means.
Opponents of loco have at least some mathematical justification for their position.
Proponents' arsenal includes pictures, cheeks and "you're dumb". :)
There are at least 2 people on this forum who are pro-locke authorities. Of course, the use of lock is more of a psychological character than a technical one.
I don't use lots, but a lot can be removed during a supposed rapid movement. In a fast market they won't always let you close (requotes, "deal busy", etc.), while 2 orders placed correctly in advance will solve this problem.
And if not at the same time?
If not at the same time, there will be no loca. Simultaneous does not refer to the moment of opening, but to the moment of holding orders. That is, today I am in a bullish mood and I buy Asset XXX. Tomorrow I am in a bearish mood and I open a sell order on Asset XXX. As a result, I have a sell order and a buy order and the corresponding mood is schizophrenic.
For Swetten. On the upper chart with a fixed lot 0.1 the profit for two and a half months is 1100 c.u. at the initial deposit of 10000 c.u. WITHOUT LOCK.
On the lower chart it was 2400 during the same period. Same Expert Advisor with BATTERY
I was not the first one to start with rubbish.
My mathematics is in the Expert Advisor's code and its result is on the picture.
What's the point of puffing your cheeks on the forum? What's the point?
I did not even look at the figures.
Such a difference cannot be the result of using a lock. Probably you have not reversed positions in "WITHOUT LOCK".
Why not?
Plus loca (where no extra margin is taken) - several EAs can work :)
in the work may be 0.01 lot. open the other side 0.02. as soon as 0.02 worked out, close without exiting the 0.01 lot position. Now we should close... ...open... ...close and open again.
it does not work like that with the cancellation of the locks.
Yes, that's probably the only point where lock helps (not to be confused with better/worse!). And even that is in case of an ultra-aggressive MM, when positions are opened by half of deposit. Mathematically it looks like this:
Deposit $1000, margin for 0.5 lots - $500, there is no extra margin for the lock, cost of 1 point is $5.
Then, after opening with this volume and getting a loss of more than 100 points (in currency terms - more than $500), we can open an opposite position (gets into the lot), and then, when a new signal comes to open a position, to open the lot, simulating the opening of a second position with 0.5 lot, which we would not be able to do if the first deal was committed, because there would be not enough margin.
This example is clearly a gaming approach to trading, nevertheless it was used by a trader I know on the real (good or bad - everyone decides for himself).
And I didn't look at the numbers.
This difference cannot be the result of using a loca. You probably didn't flip positions in the "WITHOUT LOCK" variant.
Maybe. The variant with a lock: after a position is positively locked by a counter limit, the movement continues, and the newly opened position is knocked out by the stop. But the previous position remains.
It also happens. After locking, the price reverses, beats out the previous position (sometimes it is already at breakeven) and goes further.
Of course, double losses also happen.
If we have a correct entry signal + optimizer (TP and SL) then it works out quite good
In variant without a lockup both positions were closed simultaneously if(positions==2)OrderClose(...). I.e. it did not let profits grow.
This was me experimenting