Tester supporting MG4 scripts and advisors - page 9
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
You don't get it then. Don't lie by saying that MT5 is more marketable than MT4. Especially lie that MT4 is just a toy, since there is no netting there. Dukascopy-platform where there are multi-directional positions is also a toy? If you do not know/understand the subject, then do not lie!
1. The point is not about netting. The point is the "archaic" nature of MT4 itself. As for the presence/absence of netting, it is not the most important thing in the market. It's worth noting, though, that netting is exactly the "standard".
2. Regarding the "Dukascopy platform". Again with the quote of my own - It's true, that trying to create something more "perfect" we risk creating something resembling MT in 10 years.
So they created "something resembling MT4" so what?
Can you cite at least one exchange, where MT4 is used as a standard terminal (at least MT4 must be certified on this exchange)?
Can you think of a single exchange...
To answer a question with a question: can you think of a single MARKETING electronic trading structure other than a stock exchange? If not, widen your horizons.
To answer a question with a question: can you think of a single MARKETING electronic trading structure other than a stock exchange? If not, broaden your horizons.
The whole world is comfortable and you are not. :)
You should not compare the "toy" MT4 (which was essentially designed to work in a DC sandbox) with terminals designed to work in a normal environment.
I don't care as much about the whole world as I do about the interests of the customers to develop experts with complex logic. ;)
A compromise solution would be to organize virtual orders on the MT5 level. Then there would be both netting that someone needs and the old logic of working with orders.
I'll answer a question with a question: what does MT4 know about the MARKET?
No less than an MT5. Now address the same question to yourself, only replace a B with an A.
Go learn what the MARKET is! Trader, you know...
I don't care as much about the rest of the world as I do about the interests of the development of experts with complex logics. ;)
A compromise solution would be to organise virtual orders on the MT5 level. Then there would be both netting that someone needs and the old logic of working with orders.
Virtualisation somehow changes the presentation of traders' obligations. Clearing houses calculate these obligations in a complex way, and these obligations themselves are a financial document and manipulating them, albeit for the trader's benefit, calls into question the successful licensing of the trading terminal.
You don't get it then. Don't lie by saying MT5 is more marketable than MT4. Especially not to lie that MT4 is just a toy, since it has no netting. Dukascopy-platform where there are multi-directional positions is also a toy? In short, if you don't know/understand the subject, at least don't lie!
Don't equate a platform for personal use within Dukascopy with a stock exchange terminal that needs to be licensed on a variety of stock exchanges.
I do not. It's just hilarious to hear baseless arguments about virtualization being toyish and non-marketable. All the algo funds write virtualization for themselves. MT4+ third party developers gave free virtualization to the masses who were able to appreciate it. In MT5, the virtualization was taken away. And there are clever people who show up who call this restriction a MARKET.
And about dukascopy, they have a platform for sale (not just for themselves) and conform to both netting and virtualization ONCE. But no one is preventing the platform (the same MT5) from making the option to switch. However, they haven't.
If you start picking from exchange point of view, then (I could be wrong) ticks from exchange do not go to end-to-end. By doing so MT5 generates them OWN arrival times etc. And the tick numbers in MT5 are generated by MT5 itself. The same stop pauses have nothing to do with the exchange at all. But it is declared. So to talk about the marketability of the platform is a level of poking around. But in essence - nothing. You either understand it or you don't.
If you start picking on it from an exchange perspective, (I could be wrong) the ticks from the exchange do not go through. By doing so MT5 generates them with their own arrival times etc. And the tick numbers in MT5 are generated by MT5 itself. The same stop pauses have nothing to do with the exchange at all. But it is declared. So to talk about the marketability of the platform is a level of poking around. In essence, it's nothing. You either understand it or you don't.
In MT5 in exchange mode the tick times are solely from the gateway/exchange, all ticks are exchange too. Here is the trade just executed on RTS:
Exchange ticks are displayed.
The charts are based solely on tamstamps from the exchange. This means that all brokers of the exchange will have the same charts.
The pending orders are placed directly in the chart, have their own exchange tickers and work properly:
The integrated stoplosses and takeprofits, on the other hand, are actually virtual and are thrown out for execution on the market when the time comes. This solution has a good side - it saves on GO (guarantee collateral, margin). Those who want guaranteed execution of stops in the betting market can easily manage pendants that are 100% in the betting market instead of integrated stops.
Thank you for your comprehensive answer, it means I've made an educated guess:
If you start picking on it from an exchange perspective, then(I could be wrong) ...
Glad you don't think virtualisation is evil either.
ZS charts by timestamps - yes. And the ticks themselves, on which OnStart reacts (about logical packetization I know - we do not consider) have timestamps from the exchange itself or from MT5?
Glad you don't think virtualisation is evil either.I didn't say that.
I haven't touched on the subject at all and don't plan to.