NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 40

New comment
 
kombat >> :

Well, some of them have already been cited...

Moreover, 'degree of reliability' is a somewhat abstract thing...

More like the level of regulation, like ODL in the UK.


What's wrong with the Britons? Or is it the other way around? I don't understand your weed.

 
BARS >> :

what do you have a problem with Britons? or vice versa? i can't understand your phrase.

Smoke right and well dried weed... )))

Exactly what they do, because they are in control.

A distant, abstract control...

*

And it's a bit awkward to suggest all sorts of Moorish jerks.

It's just a matter of time before it's all over the place... ))))))))))))

*

Yes! I forgot about the third point in the previous message...

Of course, it's good to have a dealer you trust immensely or you're used to.

However, no one cancelled the "basket of eggs" principle...

That's why the arsenal of open real accounts in N-number of dealing rooms is a matter of course.

The only difference is that you don't know how to do it, and you don't know how to do it with no profit.

 

The real reason for the NFA bans is the aggression against the MT4 DCs (IBFX and Alpari US) by FXCM and OANDA. NFA in collusion with FXCM and OANDA have pushed through their lobbyists in Congress for full regulation of NFA forex activities in the US with the new rules. FXDD, which is not licensed by NFA, won a lawsuit relatively long ago against NFA that they have no right to regulate forex activities. FXDD has been waiting three years for an NFA license... Under the new legislation, FXDDs are required to be licensed soon or be kicked out of the US market. The move of many DCs in the UK under the FSA does not solve the problem as US citizens are not allowed to open accounts there.

At the moment FXCM has already bought up several DCs, at the expense of the new rules...

The artificially induced outflow of the client base from NFA-DCs had a positive impact on the influx to offshore DCs as well.

Clever move (well calculated and calibrated) by FXCM and OANDA. Another example of businesses going into politics to protect their business.

 
arnautov >> :

As I recall, in the USSR they raised prices at the request of the workers.

But here they are removing lock-in for my personal benefit.


But realistically, how is it now, for example, on Alpari ?

>> : Have they banned locking ?

 

Technical advantage of a loca (correct me if I'm wrong):

If, for example, we have a StopLevel of 20. If you set a limit, you cannot take a strike closer than 20 pips. But if you set a Take as a Limit order immediately after the main trigger, you can do it closer than 20 pips. And when it triggers, you can do a simple close by, closing both positions.
For example, with a spread of 8 (at the time the main limit is hit), you can make a limit order at 12 pips and not 20 pips as it would be in a standard limit order.

 
mql4com >> :

Technical advantage of a loca (correct me if I'm wrong):

If we, for example, have a StopLevel of 20. Then setting a limit, you cannot take the limit closer than 20 points. But if you set a Take as a Limit order immediately after the main trigger, you will be able to do it closer than 20 points. And when it triggers, you can do a simple close by, closing both positions.
For example, if the spread is 8 (at the moment the main limit is hit), you will be able to make a Take at 12 pips and not 20 pips as it would be in a standard Take.

Let's simplify the design. Since we set the limit order as a limit order immediately after the first limit order triggers, it makes no difference whether we have a primary order from the market or a limit order. So we have an order from the market without a limit order. We want to set a TP on the next tick after the opening of that order closer than the limit order. And we cannot. For limiters, the limit level that is equal to the stoplevel works.

 

Limit orders, unlike market orders, are executed almost instantly, have no Requote and are also placed instantly.

I'm not mistaken about the Take Line setting for an open position closer to StopLevel. You can try to do it with a simple script.

But I was mistaken that you cannot place the standard Take closer to the StopLevel immediately after the Limiter triggers. Yes, you can.

That is why in this case it was not right to talk about technical advantage of the StopLock.

 
mql4com >> :

I was not mistaken about setting the Take for an open position closer to StopLevel. You can try to do it with a simple script.

Sell Limit or TP for a buy order can be set from the current Bid not closer than stoplevel/limitvel.

But it was a mistake to say that you can't put the standard limit immediately after the limit is triggered, closer to StopLevel. Yes, you can.

No. What price were you calculating from?
 

I mean the limit for limiters:

void init()
{
  double open, tp;
  int StopLevel = MarketInfo(Symbol(), MODE_STOPLEVEL); // если уменьшить на единицу, ордер не выставится
  int Offset = 100;
  
  open = NormalizeDouble(Ask - Offset * Point, Digits);
  tp = NormalizeDouble( open + StopLevel * Point, Digits);
  
  OrderSend(Symbol(), OP_BUYLIMIT, 1, open, 0, 0, tp);
  
  return;
}

void start()
{
}
1...33343536373839404142434445
New comment