Is it possible to implement a RELIABLE accounting of the aggregate position structure in MT5? - page 24
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
A very interesting approach :) in which everywhere you look, everything makes no sense...
However, the bottom line is:
1) at time Tx2 Open=595.00, SL=630, TP=440
2) at time Tx3 Open=583.33, SL=540, TP=430
.
Right? I did not make a mistake anywhere? Can I mark it on the chart?
Only equity is meaningful. If you've already bought, what difference does it make how much? It's all in the past. What matters is how much you can sell it. You have a truckload of crap you need to sell. How much you bought it has no bearing on the market value of that stuff. If it turns out that you bought it too expensive, so what? You're gonna sit around and wait for the price to go up? Why should it go up? Just because you paid a lot and now want to sell it even more? Your purchase price has no effect on the market, which means it should be taken out of your TS equation.
And on the subject of reliable accounting, let me put it this way:
Can an aeroplane be turned into a car so it doesn't fly, but drives? - It is possible. But it would be an unreliable car. An aeroplane is originally designed for something else.
Would I be so much mistaken as to say that the lockers are dejected by the absence of locks?
But the fact that something has not and will not happen - would they write so much? :-)
If someone needs something, he'll find it somewhere else.
"Business need." You can't argue with business need.
But five people keep repeating from page to page that Loki is nonsense.
.
What a suspicious subject...
What suspicious characters... :-)
But five people keep repeating from page to page that loki is rubbish.
.
What a suspicious subject...
What suspicious characters... :-)
There is such a thing as philanthropy.
There is such a thing as philanthropy.
And who is the beneficiary in this case?
And who is the beneficiary in this case?
A philanthropist, who else! )))
It's not the loki's that are rubbish, it's the panicked screaming about their lack of availability in the 5. Now that's really bullshit. Who the beneficiary is is beyond my imagination.
And who is the beneficiary in this case?
Anyone who takes the trouble to comprehend the knowledge that philanthropists freely share with them.
I've written many times: Expert Advisors that make decisions about transactions based on their history, logically, purposely, and simply on common sense, are flawed. The decision about the transaction should be based on what you have in your account, on the securities and on the market situation. But not on what you have had in the past! Once again, this is flawed logic that has NOTHING to do with the PURPOSE of trading.
Justify it.
Just so that it is clear to everyone that, apart from your approach, all other approaches are unprofitable, and therefore flawed! What is the flaw in it?
Justify it.
Just so that it is clear to everyone that, apart from your approach, all others are unprofitable, and therefore flawed! Or what is the flaw in it?
Justify what? That the Expert Advisor should look at the current state of the account and the market, and not at the position that it has opened? ))) It's been said a hundred times already. Look it up. Maybe in the next thread - I'm starting to lose my head from the general disorientation.
Well, look, you have connected an Expert Advisor. You have so much money on your account, so many instruments - some in shorts, some in longs. The Expert Advisor looks at all this stuff, at the market, and makes a decision. What the fuck does history have to do with it?
That is, if he sees the same baad, but not after turning it on, but during the process, moreover, he has traded it himself, he must make a different trading decision, right? Is that what you are saying? If yes - you have to appeal to other Expert.
And then: Where did I write that "unprofitable"? Watch the bazaar - it's in front of you. Glands can also be removed through the anus, but why? That's what I call a flawed approach. (It's easier to pull off a bosom and have it sorted out in peace. ))))