Emergency at the MICEX RTS. A frenzied trading robot - page 10
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
Renate, dotnet is understandably shit, but you should have given it to those who want it. As long as you have such shit as "fibo indicators" in your terminal. =)
And the thesis about security and "here's an api you've opened, why don't you use it"? I do not understand it. I think that the reason is that the terminals that have open api, with or without it, nobody needs it. Oh, let me make a poll. =)
wise:
Oh, I'm going to take a poll now. =)
Some kind of clearly unfinished robot. That's why it's pissed off. ))
Pre-calculated similar situations would help in such cases. You can build various limiters on drawdowns. And everything was obviously working in perpetual loop there. )) Even if it were so, the limiters should be written right inside the loop. And when they are reached, all positions must be closed, and then the EA must be removed from the chart. For the real account the program must be prepared more thoroughly.
Some kind of clearly unfinished robot. That's why it's pissed off. ))
In such cases, such situations calculated in advance would be useful. You can build various limiters on drawdowns. And everything was working in an eternal loop. )) Even if so, the limiters should be written right inside the loop. And when they are reached, all positions must be closed, and then the EA must be removed from the chart. For the real account the program must be prepared more thoroughly.
In the case of Quik it could have been a bit more serious.
In any case, the implementation should have been taken more seriously.
By the way, I think that such serious money should not be managed by one robot, but by several (by idea).
Yeah, that's right! We couldn't keep track of one bot, and if there were a dozen of them, then it would have been...
You could have used a bot that would have monitored the trader and, if anything, stopped all the fun.
I don't know if it was a private fund or a private company, but the fund is supposed to have a lot of bots and there should be a risk manager.
It was possible to use a bot that would control the trader and stop all the fun if anything happened.
I do not know whether it was a private company or a fund, but the fund is supposed to have a lot of robots and should have an adequate risk manager.
Maybe it was an ordinary phenomenon, just inflated by the media, 4 million or a billion or something, it is certainly a significant amount for me, but how much deposit drawdown it was, I do not know ... and the leverage was probably not 1:100.
I do not know whether it was a private broker or a fund.
Wow, how everyone has been corrupted by MT.
And on the RTS and the UX, the demo is not the same as the real + often many tools and settings are simply not available. I.e., the difference between demo and real is really so huge that on demo it is only possible to assess the robot very roughly. And it doesn't matter if you wrote it in qpile, Stock# or C++ for Plaza II. That leaves us to test it only on the real. What, apparently, peasants have done long ago (maybe even that day in the morning, or even a month ago) with a small lot - made sure that everything works and put a big lot - here the logical error that came unexpectedly for developers (the so-called "Black Swan" has flown in; by the way, it's an excellent book). And the fact that the robot freaked out for only 2 minutes only confirms that the company has a risk manager or that the robot had limitations. Well, who hasn't made mistakes? Especially since there may have been a mistake made by the trader, not the programmer who has only been seeing the market for a second month. In addition, I'm sure more than 80% of our forum users would have made exactly the same mistake, because they have been corrupted by forex with "infinite" volumes. The mistake is not obvious.
Regarding qpile - why won't the code below work? :)
Well, we are not familiar with qpile. At one time, I wanted to put this example in the humor thread, but I decided not to mock Quik development students.
Well, in qpile, ALL variables are global, no matter where you declare them. And they are accessible after the first reference to them.
In the getHigh function, the loop calls GetBar:
which also has a loop with "i" as the loop variable:
and after returning from the GetBar function, i becomes _gbCount + 1 instead of 3 (as intended). Well, everything goes to hell after that :-)
Because of this I have to refuse customary i, j, min, max, tmp etc. - You have to add something to the variable names so that you don't accidentally mess up other functions. As a consequence, the code becomes not very pleasant to read.
And now let's get back to mt4 or mt5 - they are just beauty, lightness and convenience comparing to the last millennium's wretchedness called qpile.
By the way, qpile does not allow to execute an option - so it is "under-language" even for the native platform
For the hundredth time, I'm really looking forward to MT5 for the stock market, because with all these crutches for quickswitches and so on, there is nothing else but crutches.
Wow, how everyone has been corrupted by MT.
Also, I'm sure more than 80% of our forum members would make exactly the same mistake, because they are corrupted by forex with "infinite" volumes. The mistake is not obvious.
He shifted by 7-10 ticks :)