What is a tester's Grail? - page 11
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
i switched to mt5 as soon as i saw the tester's advantages. i don't really care about hedging or netting.
it depends on the programmer and the testing mode. the created ticks are a mess, i agree, maybe after the introduction of real tick history something will change.
with respect.
I test on real tick history everything else is wrong of course.
in the 5pc has been implemented
for a long time, a few months or more.
In my old MT4, before version 600, I really lacked at least structures, not to mention OOP. That's why I did a lot of work in DLL, I wrote robots in C#.
With appearance of OOP life became more fun. And when they've introduced hedge in A, I started crawling there at all.
Heh-heh-heh... I was right on the money... I started writing for MT5 right away, because I had no doubt that I would go there sooner or later.
My taste has changed dramatically after the introduction of hedge accounts - I've been using MT5 only, although my main account is still under MT4. But with cross-platform defines - no problems now, I wrote a library based on unified interfaces, and I don't even remember what platform I work on...
Heh heh heh... I guessed right here... I immediately started writing for MT5, because I had no doubt that sooner or later we would get there.
And with the introduction of hedge accounts - I've been using MT5 only, although my main account is still under MT4. But with cross-platform defines - no problems now, I wrote a library based on unified interfaces, and I don't even remember what platform I work on...
Sincerely.
that was obvious as soon as the first release of mt5 was made.
As far as I remember, the introduction of OOP in 4 was not denied, but the possibility of locking in MT5 - there was a time when it was said "not planned".
Apparently, later the developers realised that the order system of MT4 was very convenient, although it wasn't quite logical from the point of view of capital organisation in brokerage companies.
As far as I remember, the introduction of OOP in 4 was not denied, but there was a time when the possibility of locking in MT5 was said to be "not planned".
Apparently, later the developers realised that the order system of MT4 is very convenient, although it is not quite logical from the point of view of capital organisation in brokerage companies.
The trading itself implies the presence of one position in the market - you either go buy or sell, there is no third option. And the fact that in MT5 this idea was implemented straight away is very good, since all the slag with a bunch of orders in different directions ate a trader's spreads, and who realized that it's better to implement a single entry and as a consequence spend 1 spread and still get a good result based on signal profitability, rather than on the mathematical tricks of different locks and orders, the trader may easily implement and create any system that trades at profit on any instrument and for any platform.
Sincerely.
P.S. The OOP wrapper is not that important in trading, it's like the 5th wheel of a cart, the programmer needs it more as a crutch.
The spreads have nothing to do with it, because every additional entry into the market eats the same spread, regardless of MT4 or MT5.
The spreads have nothing to do with it, because every additional entrance into the market eats the same spread, regardless of whether it is in MT4 or MT5.
You're right saying "trading implies a single position". But the order system is very convenient for traders. It was so convenient that developers had to introduce this system in MT5, apparently, this was a condition set by many brokerage companies.
P.S. And the OOP wrapper is not so important in trading, it's like the 5th wheel of a cart, the programmer needs it more as a crutch.
No, not as a crutch, but as a very handy tool. It is OOP in programming that is in some way as convenient as the order system in trading.
What's the point of a forum if it's all an illusion?)
Fingers on buzzers: to write a robot.
That's obvious.
All that's left is to wean the robot off the tester and tame it to the real world.
Spreads have nothing to do with it, because every additional entry into the market eats the same spread, whether it is in MT4 or MT5
You are right about "trading implies having one position", but the order system proved to be very convenient for traders. It was so convenient that developers had to introduce this system in MT5. Apparently, it was a condition set by many brokerage companies.
No, not as a crutch, but as a very convenient tool. Just OOP in programming is in some way the same convenience as the order system in trading.
When you can lock a position you do it, and then you think how to fix it (which leads to the opening of additional orders, and thus increases the volume, which you used to earn money and as a consequence the trading efficiency goes down), and when you don't have such a possibility you just close it and thus you get more responsibility for the opening of the position.
I won't argue about OOP, who cares, but I care more about performance, especially in the tester during optimization.
with respect.
When you can lock a position, you do it and then you think about how to close it (which leads to the opening of additional orders, and thus increases the volume you used to earn money and therefore the efficiency of the trade decreases), and when you don't have such a possibility you simply close it and you become more responsible for the opening of the position.
What do you mean? Without locking - everything is done in the same way, with reopening. Absolutely any TS with locking can be converted into a TS without locking, and the Equity Curve will be the same, the deposit load, spreads, everything will be identical.
Locking has only one advantage - it is visually convenient for manual trading. Something like a "note" - "there was a losing position here. But from the viewpoint of TS - there is no difference - whether to place a lock and then open it, or to close a position and then re-open it. However, in the case of locking for a few days - you pay an additional swap (compared to reopening).