Once again, about the lokas. - page 57
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
The result of breaking a lock is equivalent to the result of triggering a stop and then executing the corresponding trade. Obviously, locs are an unnecessary pain in the neck and nothing more!!!
You want to avoid the arms of Uncle Kolya with a lock!) Ridiculous!
The result of breaking a lock is equivalent to the result of triggering a stop and then executing the corresponding trade. Obviously, locks are an unnecessary pain in the neck and nothing more!
You want to use a lock to avoid the arms of Uncle Kolya.) Ridiculous!
I disagree. I don't agree. I think it's a good idea to use locs on a PAMM account, because I can't be sure it will work. I saw the manager's statements on a PAMM account, he used locks, and the account is still successfully managed. Hedge is not a lock, but it is similar. All banks use hedging, it's worth thinking about. In MT5, the lock is impossible, why? Because clever heads know that the use of the lock in TS is a protection against withdrawal. At least.
I disagree. I have observed and analysed it, and it was found out that using lots brings positive results. I've seen the manager's statements on a PAMM account that uses locks, and the account is still successfully managed. Hedge is not a lock, but it's similar. All banks use hedging, that's something to think about. In MT5, the lock is impossible, why? Because clever heads know that the use of the lock in TS is a protection against withdrawal. At least.
Your agreement/disagreement has nothing to do with quantification. Neither does locs have anything to do with hedge. What the banks use has nothing to do with locs.
Regarding the highlighted in your post : analysis in the studio. There is nothing to talk about without it. It has been shown more than once on this forum algebraically (if you understand how it is) that lock stats have no advantage over netting. And worse on the size of swaps, if any. Do bother to look up the history and check the calculations before you shake the air with unsubstantiated claims. Or, if you want to understand where you are wrong, provide your calculations. If someone is not too lazy to look for errors for the hundredth time, he/she may suggest it.
Your agreement/disagreement has nothing to do with quantification. Neither does lock to hedge. And don't "bullshit" about how the banks work. What the banks use has nothing to do with locs.
Regarding the highlighted in your post : analysis in the studio. There is nothing to talk about without it. It has been shown more than once on this forum algebraically (if you understand how it is) that lock stats have no advantage over netting. And worse and the size of the swaps, if any. Do your best to search history and check the calculations before shaking the air with unsubstantiated claims. Or, if you want to understand where you are wrong, provide your calculations. If someone is not too lazy to look for errors for the hundredth time, maybe they will suggest it.
The result of breaking a lock is equivalent to the result of triggering a stop and then executing the corresponding trade. Obviously, locks are an unnecessary pain in the neck and nothing more!
You want to use a lock to avoid the arms of Uncle Kolya.) Ridiculous!
Hemorrhoids are a more primal concept in terms of where loki comes from.
Hemorrhoids begin with boarding a chilly tram, leading to good fortune in this endeavour.
And loki, it's attempts at self-medication.
It's a matter of luck.
)))
In that case, could you please justify the removal of the locking option in mt5?
Netting is the general rules of real trading. Even with locks in place, for example, at interbankfx the margin was released when a counter position was opened. For the uninvolved, there was (and probably still is) a clarification that having two counter positions in reality equals one position with a side difference. After a lot of complaints from traders who were misled by the hawkish form of accounting, the NFA simply banned this form of accounting. Exactly so as not to be misleading. That's it - no other rationale. Believe it or not, look for a conspiracy.
By the way - I'm not against the use of locs. I've told you a hundred times. This is a personal trader's business. With this form of accounting, the logic of Expert Advisors that work on more than one strategy is sometimes easier. But when a trader claims that he or she has an advantage when using trays, it means that the trader either does not understand what he or she is doing, or, more fundamentally, deliberately misleads potential investors. Such traders usually show their balance to investors and demand payment on balance growth, which, IMHO, is fraudulent.
Netting is the general rules of real trading. Even with locks in place, for example, at interbankfx the margin was released when a counter position was opened. For the uninvolved, there was (and probably still is) a clarification that having two counter positions in reality equals one position with a side difference. After a lot of complaints from traders who were misled by the hawkish form of accounting, the NFA simply banned this form of accounting. Exactly so as not to be misleading. That's it - no other rationale. Believe it or not, look for a conspiracy.
By the way - I'm not against the use of locs. I've told you a hundred times. This is a personal trader's business. With this form of accounting, the logic of Expert Advisors that work on more than one strategy is sometimes easier. But when a trader claims that he or she has an advantage when using trays, it means that the trader either does not understand what he or she is doing, or, more fundamentally, deliberately misleads potential investors. Such traders usually show their balance to investors and demand payment on balance growth, which, IMHO, is fraudulent.
"After a bunch of complaints from traders misled ..." -
To avoid being misled, it is not forex trading methods that should be banned, but forex itself. Cheating indicators, cheating EA, thechanalysis and fundamentals, not to mention news, but banning locks.
Where are the origins of the fraud, and what do the DCs providing access to the market on this platform have to do with the NFA?
Netting is the general rules of real trading. Even with locks in place, for example, at interbankfx the margin was released when a counter position was opened. For the uninvolved, there was (and probably still is) a clarification that having two counter positions in reality equals one position with a side difference. After a lot of complaints from traders who were misled by the hawkish form of accounting, the NFA simply banned this form of accounting. Exactly so as not to be misleading. That's it - no other rationale. Believe it or not, look for a conspiracy.
By the way - I'm not against the use of locs. I've told you a hundred times. This is a trader's personal matter. With this form of accounting, the logic of Expert Advisors that work on more than one strategy is sometimes easier. But when a trader claims that he/she has an advantage when using trays, it means that either he/she doesn't understand what he/she is doing, or, more fundamentally, he/she is deliberately misleading potential investors. Such traders usually show their balance to investors and demand payment on balance growth, which, IMHO, is fraudulent.
Vladislav! I agree with you about the highlighted text in your post. But damn, in some of my EAs, which I put on one pair but on different TFs (of course with different parameters), when netting (which I try to emulate in MT4) I cannot achieve a one-way position (I still get lots), but I want to do netting. I do not have a lock on each of them individually. But I would like to do it on each of them separately and not on them collectively. Logic arrives at the conclusion - one pair-one aggregate position. It means that in 5 different (or identical) EAs on one pair in different TFs will still mutually destroy differently directed positions?
ZS. Do not kick. I cannot place the 5 now, the hardware does not allow. Thats why I ask. I can't get a fucking clue about Netting. Could you point me in the direction of this?
RekkeR:
The indicators cheat, the EA cheats
Never cheated if the algorithm is error-free. Indicators and EAs always work in exact accordance with the given algorithm.
If you are not familiar with the algorithm of advisors or indicators, and you expect them to do something that they are not able to do, then it is your own problem.