Errors, bugs, questions - page 401
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
Now pay attention (430 build, account just registered on Alpari).
sergey1294
Thanks for the information.
Still a catch then. The minimum order volume requirement is not met.
Is it acceptable when there are no open positions and we try to open a position with 0.01 lot volume in any direction?
Anyway, I would like to hear the developers' explanations. The situation is contradictory.
The actual one is #458 from 25/05/2011.
Do you think it won't have that in it?
you can't make a trade with less volume even in manual mode, but you can close the rest of the position with less than minlot. as I said, it's the same in quad too
Indeed, allows you to close an existing pose on any volume (if this is not a bug, I do not know what - maybe it was originally intended ...), will need to remember just in case.
Opening a new pose does not allow, flipping an existing pose to an incorrect volume will not work either.
If you want to trade on any volume, you may do it manually, but in essence it is understandable.
Interesting:
Indeed, it allows you to close an existing pose to any volume (if this is not a bug, I don't know what is - maybe it was originally intended that way...), I'll have to remember it just in case.
Open a new pose does not allow, flip to an incorrect volume existing pose does not work either.
There you go, now that's cleared up. The rules of volume granulation apply, except for full closing of a position, in which case the trade can be of any volume. We should specify it in the documentation.
Correction.
Not just the full one. As I understand it, the exception (if it is an exception) applies in three cases:
a) Full closing of a position by an equal lot (technical details will be omitted);
b) Trimming of an existing position - decrease of the volume of an existing position by a multiple of a step (presumably);
c) Oversampling/ramping - increase of the volume of an existing position by a multiple of a step (supposedly).
PS
A roll is most likely possible if the resulting volume is not less than the minimum. Here I have not checked (but it is in fact no longer an exception to the rule).
Guys, all our conclusions are speculation.
We need to get a specific comment from the developers: is this a feature or a bug?
If it's a feature, it should be described in maximum detail at documentation level!
If it is a bug, then obviously there must be a clear restriction at the level of the "MQL5 engine" - the minimum lot and the minimum step must be equal.
I looked around the forum, and the developer's representatives seem to promptly discuss all the questions that arise. That is a great advantage of this platform.
I hope they will give a comprehensive reply in the nearest future.
Guys, all our conclusions are speculation.
We need to get a specific comment from developers: is it a feature or a bug?
If a feature, it should be described in maximum detail at documentation level!
If we take into account that in MT4 it is also present to some extent, then let's approve it as a feature (the developers know better about documentation).
If our manager doesn't know the difference between the order we placed and the order we placed, then it is a problem of broker and not of the trading complex.
PS
Although there may be cases when the broker will not be happy that the trader took advantage of this loophole. The main thing is not to be cheeky.
Usually brokers set the step equal to the minimum order
Very often min. lot = 0.1, step 0.01.
In DCs, yes, I'm not sure that a really working broker will set up the server in this way.
But brokerage companies, no matter how kind they are, after a while look at very devious actions of the client and may take measures (what kind of brokerage company would like such impudence?).
But if you are not too cheeky, this method may work.
Interesting
Again, I'm not in favour of speculation and hoping for the "maybe".
Aquality response from the developers would be able to resolve the issue unequivocally .