NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 26
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
What's wrong with the standard one?
>> how?!
>> How?
When closing, you specify the required volume, which may be less than the volume of the open position.
And there will be a partial close.
When closing, you specify the desired volume, which may be less than the volume of the open position.
And there will be a partial closing.
I didn't know. >>Thank you!
I'm paraphrasing myself:
The positive feature of loco, which nothing on MT4 can replace, is the ability to partially close a position by TakeProfit.
In the meantime, there is a thread which is a technical extension of this thread 'Exchange of data between two EAs running in different terminals'.
then there will be a topic 'how to live without cheating?"
Just in case, let me clarify. The question of whether lock is useful in its pure form or not does not interest me at all, because I don't use it specifically. It's just inconvenient when there are several Expert Advisors (for example 10), that use one and the same working logic, but are independent in decision making, to think about some global "Expert Advisor", that will calculate what can be closed/overlapped by opposite position, to always keep one direction for each of instruments. I think that even from a mathematical point of view the problem has no solution. That's why I started working out how to counteract the new NFA rule. I used my broker, I don't meet any bad reviews in the Internet. I have never met any bad reviews in the Internet.
Why are you guys getting so heated?
You are all talking about the same thing, but in different words. And all the "bickering" only stems from the fact that someone does not know something and is in a partial "delusion".
The point is simple: the NFA is, by and large, nothing to scold. Everything would be more logical and simple, if brokerage companies allowed keeping as many "virtual" orders as we wanted (which, in fact, all orders you currently see in MT4 are) and commissions and swaps would be taken only from an aggregate position (on an account). In this case we will have enough wolves (no obstacles for many EAs working simultaneously on one account, level strategies, "timeouts" for those who go to bed for the night), and we will have no sheep (brokerage companies will not charge unreasonable commissions and swaps, which of course make the brokerage company owners very happy). I think, by and large, the NFA is fighting just this "cheating" on the part of the broker, which, even if it takes your positions to the outside market, they are already clearly cleared! ;-) Internal clearing has not been cancelled.
Therefore, it is better for everyone to take a beer, relax and just wait for MT5, when it appears and start thinking about how to live further!
Absolutely nothing. >> Why would there be?
I must have imagined it. >> I'm sorry.
HELLO!!!!
:)
Been reading this thread with interest until today.
Today my DC said they have no plans to ban locks.
And so somehow the interest is gone!
:)
Good luck to everyone in the fight against the ban!
Good luck with the trend and large profits to you!
I read this thread with interest until now.
Today my DC said that they have no plans to ban locks.
And somehow the interest is gone!
Those brokerage companies that will ban locks from May 15, guaranteed there will be no problems with payments.
Those brokerage companies that will ban lock from May 15, guaranteed there will be no problems with payouts.
I have not had any problems with payments yet.
Have you had any problems?
>> Sincerely!