Real work on MT5 NDD - 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
The problem here is something else. With a known fixed spread, I place a pause over the zigzag at zigzag+spread+filter (1pp).
This way the pause will trigger when the Bid makes a zigzag reversal breakout+filter.
In the case of an extended floating spread, the pivot may trigger without a zigzag reversal.
so you didn't get bystop bid prices and what's the tragedy?
And I need a buy stop, and I don't need to enter on a reversal, but on the breakthrough... This is the details of a particular TS...
In this question about a pending order I'm speaking in the context as drawn.
If on the fingers with a fixed spread, it will be like this:
Let's take the zigzag peak at 1.3000.
Take a buy stop order 4 pips higher than the zigzag = 1.3004. Why? Because the spread is 3 pips + one pip per filter.
So the order will be triggered when the ask is 1.3004, the bid 1.3001. Bid will make a breakthrough. That's what we need.
In the case of floating spreads it may not work that way. The order will be triggered at 1.3004 asc, but the bid won't make a breakthrough.
The criteria for entering the market according to TS (breakdown) will not be fulfilled.
Actually, the point was to ensure that the order is executed at the best price at a certain moment, not the worst... and for that limiters are useless because they are usually the worst price.
So on ECN when executing fast, limiters are not good, but markets should execute at the best price at that moment...
Actually, I was talking about sending a market order with market execution, it is not clear at what price it will be executed. For example: the system gives a signal to buy from level 20 with a take profit of 50; the current price is 20, we send two orders (one is a limit order (with the price 20), the other is a market order); during the processing of our order, some bad person has made a wrong move and the price jumps to 70; the market order is executed at 70, the limit order remains unexecuted. And by best price, I meant the best price for us (the price that gives the highest take/loss ratio). And I think a pretty good bonus is the ability to set stops.
Well, you describe a typical kitchen situation - but on the real market, the probability of such sharp jumps in a few ticks so that the price stays there and does not return is zero because there are orders in both directions and in many layers and therefore a few single ticks cannot cover them all at all, unless of course there is a collusion between all participants. Keep in mind that due to arbitrage with other currencies and currency futures, the sharpness of the jump is further smoothed out and stretched over time. This is why in the kitchens the limiters are a way to guarantee something and not the fact that they will let you do it, while on ECN there can not be such a thing and there the market order is the best price at that moment which can also slip into the right direction, which is impossible with a Limit. Limiters is usually a detriment to an ECN order, except for cases when limiters are paid by brokerage companies as a part of spread (there are some) and in this case limiters are justified and not so unprofitable.
On a pure ECN, the limit is of course executed exactly at the price and guaranteed when the price crosses. But because FOREX in most cases work with the ECN/STP scheme, the limit is executed (can be redirected) with a positive slippage, which on average is usually enough to cover the commission costs. For example, in the tester it often makes sense to make the commission zero when working through the limiters, because on the real account their positive slippage will allow to struggle only against the spread (without commission).
P.S. Competent brokers on Metatrader have both Ask and Avg-history.
On a pure ECN, the limit is of course executed exactly at the price and guaranteed when the price crosses. But because in FOREX most of the time they work with the ECN/STP scheme, the limit is executed (can be redirected) with a positive slippage, which on average is usually enough to cover the commission costs
The first sentence contradicts the second. It says first that the limit is executed at a constant price and then it says that the limit can be executed with a slippage in the trader's favour.
How can a limiter slip because we are talking about opposite bids with the same price for the limiter's execution?
The first sentence contradicts the second. First it says that the limit is executed at a constant price, and then it says that the limit can be executed with a slippage in the trader's favour.
Read carefully: on pure ECN and ECN/STP.
How can a limit order slip because it is a counter-order with the same price to execute the limit order?
Reject and positive limit slippage:
If there is no opposite opposite price in the internal ECN to your order, but there is a satisfying external price in the STP, your order will be sent out. There it can be checked or executed (partially or fully), because of the time costs of sending your trade order. Therefore, in an ECN/STP scheme a limit order can be redirected but cannot be executed with a negative slippage.
On STP, your limit order will be sent if the price from it is better or equal to the limit order. Moreover, while your order is going to STP, the price can change in any direction: still improve (positive slippage), leave the limit area (re-jacket).
In addition, there is a concept called LastLook - when your order comes to the bank, it has the right to decide whether to execute it or not. This is a kind of official manipulation technique: the bank purposely gives a good price so that the bids go to it. Once it receives them, it compares its price with the prices of others (when it gave the price, it was the best, and when it received the bids, the prices of others changed). If his price is not better than the competition's, he executes, if better, he redirects at the expense of LastLook opportunity. The bank's goal in such a case is to increase turnover or remove internal distortions of its marketmaking as quickly as possible.