Question on working with stops: classic on limiters + stops integrated into position - page 6
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
Our client is not illiterate, he has previously worked for a year in our own trading system, with those very as you say "terrible" OCO and IF Done. He also, of course, had experience with MT-4. And the hybrid didn't really work out.
And as for the issue at hand, I understand at this point you will bend your line and that's it, we did this and that's that, eat what's served. Yes, monopoly is bad. Well here on the forum, that's your job, I understand.
If only you had at least moved the volume and stops with profits far away in the order submission window in MT-5. And you would sign it not just "Stop Loss", but "Stop Loss on the entire open position volume". Same thing about Take Profit. But it's still bullshit. I have already written you how it should ideally be done. All active stops and profits are orders, too, and should be shown in the orders section.
It means that you yourself understand that your client has just pushed the wrong button. And now you are trying to present all this as a platform problem.
IMHO no matter where the author wrote from, Sieg and yarzar are the same person.
Luckily, he's actually from the bank, at least from their network.
I can see why this topic came up. It seems that the trader just didn't follow his stops and is now ready to trample and break everything around him, not wanting to think with his head. This explains why he does not listen to arguments but bends his line.
No, no one is breaking anything. The client just dabbled on a demo account and is surprised by this feature of MT-5. I am also surprised, although we have MT-5 for a year already. I have not read the regulation either :) But I personally find such work with orders unnatural, and not because I'm an illiterate trader :)
I wish I had been directly involved in the interaction with your developers, maybe I would have given some ideas of my own.
I am a representative of the bank that bought MT-5 from you, and the gentleman you banned is our client.
No, nobody is breaking anything. The client just dabbled in a demo account and is surprised by this feature of MT-5. I am also surprised, although we have had MT-5 for a year. I have not read the regulation either :) But I personally find such work with orders unnatural, and not because I'm an illiterate trader :)
I wish I had been directly involved in the interaction with your developers, maybe I would have given them some ideas of my own.
It is just that people who are used to MT4 do not want to part with order system implemented in MT4.
And we just need to give the concept of "order" its true meaning, an order is a trade order. Stops are placed to protect a position; the way they are placed is through an order. Hence it is logical for each order to have a field to change the stops of the position.
No, nobody is breaking anything. The client just dabbled in a demo account and is surprised by this feature of MT-5. I am also surprised, although we have had MT-5 for a year. I have not read the regulation either :) But I personally find such work with orders unnatural, and not because I'm an illiterate trader :)
One has to keep in mind that the rules are developed by those who spend all their time working in the same direction.
It has nothing to do with people who have "been in the business for years" or "haven't read the regulations". It has to do with people who think about the business and build the infrastructure for it.
No, nobody is breaking anything. The client just dabbled in a demo account and is surprised by this feature of MT-5. I am also surprised, although we have had MT-5 for a year. I have not read the regulation either :) But I personally find such work with orders unnatural, and not because I'm an illiterate trader :)
I wish I had been directly involved in the interaction with your developers, maybe I would have given some ideas of my own.
A fact that has come to light on our forum is that a large number of people with a lot of trading experience intuitively do not think this implementation in MT-5 is normal. Although I suppose you've been pestered on this topic many, many times before, and that's why you're so angry.
You can get used to anything. You can even write in the regulations that sell is buy and buy is sell. Well, at least now we've got a lot of people familiar with the specifics of MT-5.
I will talk to Vasiliy tomorrow and find out the background.
All you have to do is give the word "order" its true meaning, an order is a trade order. Stops are placed to protect a position, the way they are placed is through an order. Therefore it is logical for each order to have a variable stop on the position.
Exactly any stop or profit is an order. In the world of dealing there are no stops or profits attached to a trade, position, or other order.
That is exactly what we want to see, so that there will be no stops and profits as technical concepts at all, but instead we will have linked orders. A stop or profit is a purely conceptual notion, while technically there is an order to sell at such and such a price, and an order to buy at such and such a price.
Well, don't put SL and TP. Leave zeros.
And feel free to use any limit or stop orders, or on the market.
It is true that any stop or profit is an order. In world dealing practice there are no stops or profits linked to a trade, position or other order.
That is exactly what we want to see, so that there will be no stops and profits as technical concepts at all, but instead we will have linked orders. A stop or profit is a purely conceptual notion, while technically there is an order to sell at some price or to buy at some price.
So it all comes down to CCA orders again.
MQ stated a long time ago that this is not going to happen.
And the last attribute of CCA orders are stops.