The future of automated trading - page 5
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 don't know about the Livermores, but there are plenty of idiots who have no information, but have an opinion on any subject.
One cent is the minimum change in the share price, i.e. you cannot earn less than one cent. And it is for that one cent that computer algorithms are actively fighting.
I don't know guys, I just don't understand you.
Let's say there are two trading platforms, one console and one with a graphical interface. The speed of execution of trade orders is the same. So, which of these two platforms to choose? The answer is obvious - the one with a graphical interface.
....
I do not know what TP you are talking about. Answer your own question. There are 2 trading platforms 1 - GUI is poor. 2 - the second one is much better (has a lot of windows, you can arrange windows on different monitors, trade directly from the chart, have a graphical control interface). And the main thing that you have mentioned - speed of execution of trade orders. The speed is different. The first is at least 2-3 seconds, even if the Expert Advisor is on the server (Championship). The second is milliseconds, without requotes and messages no price, wrong prices, without minimum indentation from the price...freezes, etc.
Which one will you choose for real trading ?
here is an example just great. just that 0.01 lot pair is the most liquid. The price is in the terminal. But as soon as I hit the buy button
the price is wrong, please process this response from the server ... This is how all traders dream of working, they broadcast one quotation, but deals can be done by other ones ... and this difference is limited only by greed of brokerage companies
The client terminal is just the tip of the iceberg of the whole MetaTrader 5 complex.
We've done a lot of trader-friendly things, but we've also taken the server platform itself to a new level by implementing a lot of the functionality that brokers need. The emphasis on auto-trading is to support a significant trend in trading. In fact, with MetaTrader we've made it possible to use EAs en masse and easily, and our competitors only have to scratch their heads and try to offer dangerous Java/C#/.NET development environments.
With the lockbox system, the issue is virtually closed - it will be squeezed out of the market by regulators. In that sense, MetaTrader 5 came along just in time.
Please show us some examples of inconveniently/incorrectly implemented processes of netting - we will deal with them.
1. It seems the netting process was implemented based on the assumption that one Expert Advisor would work with one symbol. Open position - close position. Everything is simple. Difficulties begin when several strategies (2-7-10...) operate together on one instrument. Take, for example, the concept of Stop-Loss and Take-Profit. When we are talking about multisystem solutions in MT5, we simply can't use these types of orders(!). What will be Stop-Loss for one system, will not be for another, but Stop-Loss is valid for the entire position, although the net position can be a set of positions of subsystems trading on the instrument. We have to introduce sub-orders and delegate their execution to an Expert Advisor. This is dangerous and greatly complicates the Expert Advisor's code.
2. To understand what actions result in an open position, we need to carry out a whole detective investigation unraveling the order chain and calculating its contribution to the total position. Even for programmers it is so difficult that they have to write whole articles on the subject. For manual traders, it would be a hopeless business. Have any of the developers ever tried to trade manually on MT5? I don't think so. If some trader trades manually using 5-6 strategies, after a while he will have no idea what's going on with his net position.
The list could go on, but it's already enough to alienate many people from a very good by its nature MT5 terminal.
.......
Speed and quality of execution are out of the question. These are the very things that must be "improved, improved and improved again!", as the great ... I don't remember who bequeathed. And in this respect, all platforms without exception have something to strive for. And I was talking purely about abstract platforms.
I was talking about simplifying the interface of the terminal and leaving only the trading functions. I am not in favour of simplification, I am in favour of increasing usability, i.e. usability.
All other things being equal I will choose the more convenient terminal, and I have already made my choice. And I made it a long time ago. Well, one can only hope that the developers will make advances to "manual workers" in order to improve this very usability. There is a lot to work on with MT5 in this respect.
I`ve been dealing with some "cool" company a couple of days ago that sells its analytics all over the world on the basis of its BlackBox. They don't even know about possibilities of mcl4-5 and make their own bikes, while their analytics may be easily implemented on mcl along with automatic publishing. Their whole blackbox would probably fit into a small µl program. The main point is that μl languages have drastically reduced the cost and uniqueness of homemade blackboxes.
It is certainly a legitimate reality that the cost of black boxes is going down, which the companies concerned cannot be happy about. The growing power and capabilities of MQL language, openness and prevalence of developments based on it contribute to this.
A couple of days ago I was talking to a "cool" company that sells their analytics around the world based on their BlackBox. They are not even aware of the capabilities of mcl4-5, but are making their own bicycles, although their analytics can be implemented on mcl along with automatic publishing. Their whole blackbox would probably fit into a small µl program. The main point is that µl languages have drastically reduced the cost and uniqueness of homemade blackboxes.
I recently attended a gathering of financial academics and quants from the world's leading investment companies. The man, who seems to know what he says, said that according to estimates, and no one knows the exact figures, because it is impossible to know, so it is estimated that today 50% of trades on the UK stock market and 70% of trades in the U.S. are done by automated systems. And the general trend is to increase this percentage.
The new trend in automated trading is algo-snapping (the name is very provisional and is not settled). These are algorithms or traders that do not try to predict the market behavior or crowd, or find arbitrage, etc., but try to calculate the algorithm working in the market and cheat it - artificially create a situation that would force this algorithm to buy or sell, and profit from it. Exchanges have not yet agreed on whether such activity is legal or not.
I don't know which TA you are talking about. Answer your own question. There are 2 trading platforms 1 - GUI is poor. 2 - the second one is much better (there is a lot of windows, you can arrange windows on different monitors, trade directly from the chart, there is a graphical control interface). And the main thing that you have mentioned - speed of execution of trade orders. The speed is different. The first is at least 2-3 seconds, even if the Expert Advisor is on the server (Championship). The second is milliseconds, without requotes and messages no price, wrong prices, without minimum indentation from the price...freezes, etc.
Which one will you choose for real trading ?
here is an example just great. just that 0.01 lot pair is the most liquid. The price is in the terminal. But as soon as I hit the buy button
the price is wrong, please process this server response ... This is how all traders dream of working, they broadcast one quotation, but deals can be done by other ones ... and this difference is limited only by the greed of brokerage companies ...
Use the minimum deviation from the price)).
Prices change every second, so your order has to wait for it to arrive, for it to be processed, etc.))
And the speed of order execution depends on the server, internet, etc. Frozen requotes from DCs.
And as far as I remember, there is a special delay in the championship to simulate a bad load connection, etc.
And the millisecond execution speed smells like a kitchen, because it takes time to put a trade on the market, and inside the DC you can spin it fast...
And the millisecond execution speed smells like a kitchen, because it takes time to put a deal on the market, and it is possible to make a quick turn inside a brokerage company...
You should look at the NYSE trading software, including the one that A. Gerchik taught at seminars. Market operations are almost instantly executed and displayed on the market with the keyboard shortcuts.
I hope very few people call the NYSE a "CUCH"... :)
PS
Generally speaking, it's not about slippage and other usual disadvantages of dealing. It's not even about how cool the language in which MTS is written (although it's also important). It's all about the functionality of the platform on which the MTS is running.
There are no perfect inputs, at least they are so rare that their presence can be considered a statistical error. In this case the variety of possibilities to work with an open position comes to the fore...