Whether locking or counter positions are possible - 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
buy and sell is like black and red... only it's better because there are no zeros...
but if you bet on black and red then you have like 2 bets... but in the end it's still 0
I already wrote above how even without a grid and averaging both of these operations can make a profit.
I can reiterate that we open two positions at once, for example 0.01 lot for Sell and Buy, with Take Profit of 30 points, Stop Loss of 200 points, one position will surely close at Take Profit (nobody will argue here), the second one can with some degree of probability knock out Stop Loss and close at Take Profit too. And now tell me how the same can be done without locks, and especially for Armen, roulette can be used to take out both red and black at the same time?
I understand that this is like with the bull, you have seen a red rag and have not read the details, I repeat: buy and sell with respect to currency pairs are not mutually opposite operations, by buying you take one asset, by pushing sell you take another, with different return obligations and the market is not roulette.
P.S. I have a sell ban on EURJPY because of the long term Japanese economic rate of decline, today due to the euro drop, the pair fell 270 pips, while I was only buying, as a result the net closed at +70$ on a pullback of 50 pips, the temporary drawdown did not exceed 100$. Probably not a very good example, as it is one-way trading is quite easy to implement with netting (although not without additional losses due to the total stop loss). The example was for Armen and others who compare forex with roulette. At roulette red may fall out 100 times in a row (according to probability theory) and in this case to stay in the plus you need a doubling. The market cannot move in normal conditions without a rollback in one direction and doubling is not needed. And if there is a collapse, as in 2008, the first to fly will be indicator strategies with short stop-loss, when you wake up and realize that instead of 30 points because of the gap the stop-loss was triggered in 500. By the way my bot goes through this gap without losing deposit =).
So far I have found two ways out to bypass the gaps:
1. Keep 2 accounts, one for buy, one for sell.
2. Hedging via other pairs taking into account their correlation to the major (with some decrease of profitability).
Unfortunately my brokerage companies do not provide hashed pairs, then there would be a third way =)
If anyone knows how to bypass the lock in another way, it would be appreciated.
Will future versions of the MT5 include the possibility of opening counter positions (locking), or is one "average" position for an instrument made on purpose (to increase profits for forex brokers or for other reasons) and will not be changed in the future. This drawback outweighs all the advantages that MT5 has in comparison with MT4, because it prevents the application of many trading strategies and leads to losses where MT4 made a profit. Why did they do it this way and not leave it as it was?
We should have allocated money a long time ago and ordered Artem (he will do it cheaper and better) two scripts and two functions: buy and sell; by hands and by the advisor.
To draw all the levels as you want, and so on.
The company's clients are not afraid to use MT4 and MT5, because there is no logic to support two functionally equivalent terminals and everything can be easily solved at the terminal and server settings... The reason of MT5 is probably a different one, for example, to make a deceptive maneuver for competitors...
I have already written above, how even without a grid and averaging, both these operations can bring profits.
I can repeat it: we open two positions simultaneously, for example 0.01 lot for Sell and Buy, with Take Profit of 30 points, Stop Loss of 200 points, one position will be closed with a guaranteed Take Profit (nobody will argue here), the second position with a certain probability may draw Stop Loss and close at Take Profit too. And now tell me how the same can be done without locks? And especially for Armen, roulette also can knock out both red and black at the same time?
The point is, that both in your case, and without locks - positions will be knocked out not simultaneously, but sequentially.
In the same way, you put two pending orders without any lots. As a result, you'll get one and then the other one. The line with or without any lots will be the same.
Locking the positions is a purely psychological trick, which allows us to feel that "we haven't lost the money", while the position that has been "locked" has actually been lost long ago. And waiting for the lock to "break" is the exact equivalent of closing the position and waiting for the pair to turn in a profitable direction.
The point is that both in your case and without any lots - the positions will not be knocked out at the same time, but sequentially.
In the same way, you put two pending orders without any lots. As a result, you'll get one and then the other one. The line with or without any lots will be the same.
Locking the positions is a purely psychological trick, which allows us to feel that "we haven't lost the money", while the position that has been "locked" has actually been lost long ago. And waiting for the lock to be "reversed" is quite equivalent to closing the position and waiting for the pair to turn in a profitable direction.
The most interesting thing is that the topic is already a shaky, shaky one. Back on the 4th forum and with drawings and maths. But it seems that lokomania is incurable.
I can repeat, we open two positions simultaneously, for example 0.01 lot for a Sell and Buy, with a Take Profit of 30 points, with a Stop Loss of 200 points, one position is guaranteed to close at Take Profit (I hope nobody argues here).
What is the sense of arguing?
When one of the positions is closed at Take Profit, the loss on the opposite position will be higher than the profit from closing Take.
The process is exactly the opposite, instead of changing the accounting system of MT5, work is being done to build MT4 up to the level of MT5 in terms of functionality, without touching the accounting system.
There's already so much effort poured into mt5 that they won't give it up...
You don't have to. I like netting, for example. And the long minute story. And the multi-currency/cloud optimisation. And so on.
On the other hand, with MT4 you can (with some crunch) use your own quotes, while someone needs an opportunity to maintain several virtual independent trade positions for each symbol (for me it is not of much use, but I have no objections).
And there is something missing from both platforms...
For me, it would be better to combine all the advantages of both platforms. Plus add more of what is missing, for example in MT6.