Is it possible to implement a RELIABLE accounting of the aggregate position structure in MT5? - page 29
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
Don't be sarcastic, it's not crass.
I want to get to the bottom of this "net" for myself, because the claim is that "it's all the same".
And I can already see it's not the same! And to say that it's not... to put it mildly, is wrong. Can't you see that?
After all, if "at the moment of Tx3 it has 9 lots of some bullshit and SL=540 and TP 430", SL=540 is lower than Open=583 and it is with an SELL order.
So we need to sort this out calmly, without irrelevant definitions like "nervous and/or greedy"...
You can't see the forest for the trees. An averaged op-ed makes no sense whatsoever. You don't need to count it.
On the net you can do exactly as on the lot system, but now the two pictures you suggested are different. But it's not neto's fault, it's your fault. On neto it's a different logic. You're trying to squeeze it into the lot logic stuck in your head.
It's like learning a foreign language, knowing English words is not enough to communicate fully, because you will build phrases in Russian, with English words only. You have to think in English to communicate fully. Similarly, you should not translate net constructions into lot language, but immediately think in net language.
You are talking nonsense.
You need net support to enter the stock markets. But one does NOT need to be able to exit there!
This thread is about that.
Alternative accounting is akin to running on crutches. You might have good legs but you're so used to crutches that it's better to run with them.
Alternate accounting is akin to running on crutches. You may have healthy legs, but you are so used to crutches that it is better to carry on with them.
Alternative depends on which way you look at it. Right?
So netting could very well be those crutches and an alternative to the lot...
1:1
Alternate accounting is akin to running on crutches. You may have healthy legs, but you are so used to crutches that it is better to continue with them.
timbo, position accounting is necessary only when one and the same instrument is traded by several Expert Advisors. You may use a trading log with indication of who opened how much, and in case of manual trading they simply keep "trader's diary" with the same content. This is typical not only for the system trading.
Is it possible to cram all strategies for a particular symbol into one robot and do the general accounting of positions? Of course, it is possible, but not convenient for everyone.
I mean that some of this routine, which is typical for multi-expert trading, was done in MT4 automatically and was laid down in the architecture, which is not the case with MT5. Which of course is not fatal, but not convenient for everyone.
Alternatively, it depends on which side. Right?
So netting may well be the very crutches and alternative to the lot...
1:1
Alternative is the opposition to something established, something that came first. The first was netting. The more widespread one is also neto. The lot system is a marginal alternative.
If you do not know the difference between the positions, you should use the trading diary of your trading robot. The problem is faced by those who trade on the exchange, and it is usually solved by keeping a log of who opened and how much, while in manual trading they simply keep a "trader's diary" with the same content. This is typical not only for system trading.
You do not need a log, you do not have to write anything down, a pack of EAs can easily trade on the same symbol.
Imagine having two EAs on МА, one with long periods, and one with short periods. Each of them opens and closes positions at crossing up or down. Now think about or even draw on the paper how trading would go with this cute couple without any logs, without alternative accounting.
An alternative is the opposition to something established, something that came first. The first was the net. The more widespread one is also net. The lot system is a marginal alternative.
Yeah, so the later IFRS is an alternative to RAS?
Which was also established and Russian banks kept accounts for many years and did not know what was wrong.
:)))) russian banks are marginal... were... until they forcibly switched to IFRS.
You don't need any log, you don't need to write anything down, a bunch of EAs can easily trade on the same instrument.
Imagine two EAs on the MA, one with long periods, the other with short periods. Each of them opens and closes positions at crossing up or down. Now think about or even draw on the paper how trading would go with this sweet couple without any logs, without alternative accounting.
Well, let them open with equal 1 lot. At a certain moment I have one lot opened on the symbol by some (unknown) Expert Advisor. I get a signal to open one of them. My system is designed not to open additionally at repeated crossing i.e. the system trades only one lot. How do I know is the lot opened in the same system, which received the re-crossing signal and should be ignored, or this lot in another system and a new position should be opened?
We can make it more realistic. The system uses a certain number of fills, for example 3. How do you know which system already opened, and how many you have if you only have total lot?
The existence of both netting and lot counting has been written about quite convincingly here. I repeat:
.
Imagine that MetaTrader4 shows in the Trade tab (where the open positions are now, Balance, etc.) the information that this script outputs. In that case, no one will have a conversation about the platform not being netted. It just so happens that MetaTrader4 displays the information in another form - not netting. However, there is nothing that prevents us from running the script and seeing the information as netting.
Trade results are the same in both cases, but representation of information is different. I.e. netting or not is not a concept, it is an agreement on the presentation of information.
However, the non netting representation contains more information than the netting representation. To be precise, the non netting representation contains more information about the history of trading transactions and the logical relationships between them. That is why it is very easy (this script) to make a netting view from a nonnetting view. But it is incommensurably more difficult to do the opposite.
Now imagine that MetaTrader5 has a Trade2 tab, where information about trades results is stored in a non-netting view. That is, you can view trade information in two ways (whichever is more convenient for you): in Trade(netting representation) or Trade2(non netting representation). Again, the presentation of the information does not affect the results of the trades.
What is the non netting representation of the information useful for? As I said above, this representation of information contains more data than just the netting representation. Analysis of this data, in particular, allows us to easily use several strategies on one and the same trading instrument.
Right now, on MetaTrader5, on which only the netting representation of trading results is implemented, the transition to a non-netting representation does not seem to be reliable. There are various options (global variables, FILLED order history analysis, etc.) on how to do this, but all of them are not reliable, unfortunately.
.
P.S. The developers are working on the accounting and mutual cancellation of orders in MT5. Let's see what they come up with.
Is it possible to cram into one robot all the strategies for a given instrument and make a common accounting of positions? Of course you can, but it is not always convenient for everyone.
I mean that some of this routine, which is typical for multi-expert trading in MT4, was done automatically and was embedded in the architecture, which is not the case in MT5. Which of course is not fatal, but not convenient for everyone.
Cramming all the strategies into one code is also not a reliable solution. The problem remains.