Is there a need for a lock in MT5? - page 21
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
It's just stupid....everybody is going their own way not listening to others...and not understanding themselves.
Yes the stupidity, then, is that people have a system with locs that works, but (not stupid people to see this ) persist in claiming that it can't work. If that's not stupidity, then what is. Childish? An order for an opinion?
Z.U.
I for one have already found a solution for myself. My Expert Advisor will work in MT environment, and positions will be opened (via binder) in the terminal of broker, which allows locks. The wolves are sated and the offspring intact.
Yes the stupidity, then, is that people have a system with locs that works, but (not stupid people can see it ) stubbornly claim that it can't work. If that's not stupidity, then what is. Childish? An order for an opinion?
I for one have already found a solution for myself. The EA will work in MT environment, and positions will be opened (via linking) in broker's terminal, which allows locks. And all wolves are satisfied and all offsets are safe.
I hope you don't mean me))). I was just saying that it's just different implementations of the same thing. Even admitted that if I did not have ready net strategies, then I might have resorted to the locks themselves, because in some things implementation in the locks seems easier.
Yes the stupidity, then, is that people have a system with locs that works, but (not stupid people to see this ) persist in claiming that it can't work. If that's not stupidity, then what is. Childish? An order for an opinion?
You're not quite right (IMHO, naturally) - the claim isn't that it can't work, it's that it works not because of the presence of locks, but because of the tactics of breaking them down. These are not the same thing. Such tactics have counterparts when approaching without the use of locs. Whether to use a lock or not is up to the trader. The only thing that the use of the lock does not give any advantages to the trader, because it is equivalent to the absence of the position. And this should be understood.
>> Good luck.
You're not quite right (IMHO, naturally) - the claim is not that it can't work, it's that it works not because of the presence of locks, but because of the tactics of breaking them down. These are not the same thing. Such tactics have counterparts when approaching without the use of locs. Whether to use a lock or not is up to the trader. The only thing that the use of the lock does not give any advantages to the trader, because it is equivalent to the absence of the position. And this should be understood.
So good luck.
1....Because of the availability of tactics to deal with them..... For there to be a loco tactic, it has to be in the terminal. This is what the topic is about. But, appealing to the uselessness of the locos, some there NHL, NFA, NASA, or even know what the fuck they are (what do we care about them?), begin to make waves. Although everyone knows that this is an order (just look at this nonsense http://www.kroufr.ru/forum/index.php/topic,8549.0/topicseen.html).
2.It depends on how you look, in my opinion, this is a temporary freezing of the minus and the emergence of opportunities to destroy the lock, unlike the stop, where the minus immediately appears on the account.
...and the opportunity to fix the lock... How many times it happened. It was opened. Lock. Either the house is in the way, or the electricity. Or tired, can't figure it out. Spit it out. Fixed it the next day. Otherwise it would've been a minus. And life is not smooth, how many surprises are there in it?
2 Svinozavr. Of course not, you are talking sincerely, I can see that. It's just the time has not come or really the logic of your TS is different. I just allow variants, unlike spiteful lockillers :)
Here is an extract from the NFA's decision.
......This is a strategy where clients open long and short positions on the same currency pair in the same account. The NFA believes that clients who use this strategy do not understand their economic benefit and the financial cost they are incurring. -----------> What a hoot. And how similar some people seem to be singing in this thread. I understand. Ban it because some don't understand. YYYYY.
This strategy also creates opportunities for abuse. A forex dealer can advertise this strategy to inexperienced clients in order to make money on extra spreads. An experienced client may use this scheme to launder money by incurring intentional losses on ongoing expenses. Account managers can use it to scam and defraud their clients.
NFA sought advice from experts. Two of them agreed with our proposal, saying that the practice is not economically beneficial. A third supported the ban without comment. One expert who operates an institutional forex platform pointed out that institutional investors never use such strategies. Most experts agreed that the practice was introduced at the insistence of traders and that the NFA should not determine which strategies they should use. Some suggest that many clients will simply leave to foreign operators who allow such practices.
If a professional (in any profession) finds out that there is something in his profession that he does not know or cannot do, he tries to fill the gap.
And he does not yell that if I am not able to do it, then it is not necessary and even harmful. This is not a professional, this is a layman!
And about netting: ask any accountant - if he has in stock 10 chocolates for 10 rubles and another 10 such at 12 ppm,
how much does he have in his books? 20 pieces at 11p? He'll tell you everything! And he will show you where to go with netting accounting!
And about netting: ask any accountant - if he has 10 chocolates at 10p in stock and another 10 at 12p,
how much does he have in his books? 20 pieces at 11p? He'll tell you everything! And show you where to go with the netting accounting!
And this already depends on the accounting model used. FIFO, LIFO and so on.
I guess with such profitability the developments have already paid for themselves?
Now you can sell them to Goldman Sachs for example.
The trick is, I was going to launch it in the real world, let's say... in a month or two. Who's Goldman Sachs, I apologize for my incompetent insistence.
Oh, sorry again, I looked it up on the internet. Another question, if I may ask: is this organization really interested in such projects? If so, don't think it's impertinent where you got your information.
I'll say it again - who can't figure out a way around it (coders, damn it ))))) let them trade in MT4, and in P5 only run optimization (because of the speed), what is the problem?
>> One question, how long will MT4 live?
One question is how long will MT4 live?
I don't think anyone can tell you for sure, but it's a year or two.