Question on working with stops: classic on limiters + stops integrated into position - page 16

 
Interesting:

In general, in light of the existing Sell Limit andSell Stop Limit logic, I have not thought of anything better than using them to place a Buy and Sell StopLimit order.

For trawlers they seem to fit perfectly to me.


For a trawl of an already marketable buy order yes.

But this is a bystop order.

If the current price of a bystop order is lower than the set target price, we'll try to place it again.


The same is true for trawlers - you can't put a sell-split immediately if the current price (market current bid) is lower than that sell-split.

 
220Volt:
Everything is the same as before, we have such a flexible order system that everything has to be placed in the EA.
In my opinion, the best solution today is to open a position, place a stop loss with a stop order, and take the profit with an EA (if the time frame is relatively small).

Yeah. We're in the puddle.
 
sergeev:

For a trawl already marketable buy order, yes. just right.

But we are talking about the buy-stop order.

If the current price (market current, Bid) is lower than this SellStopPrice, then the SellStopPrice cannot be set immediately for it.

In short, the tandem a la CCA Sellimit (TP) + SellSplit (SL) for a bystop position cannot be done in advance .

I just don't understand why I need to put a SellStop? Well, the way we see it, the connection of three orders, or rather the connection of two MLOs set by execution with respect to the bystop.

In this case, we would definitely need some mechanization that would be responsible for those same indications "according to execution".

Did I get the main idea right?

 
Interesting:

I just don't understand why you need to put Bystop?

the man's task was this.

I quote from

yarzar:

How could I do it with linked orders? I place a buy-stop order at the required price and in the linked IF DONE order I place a sell order for the same volume at a lower price.
It is kind of a stop on the added position. And then I go for a walk.

And how do I achieve this effect in MT-5?


As it is presented, this effect would come out of three orders, or rather a bundle of two sets of rebates set by execution with respect to the bystop.

In this case, we would definitely need some mechanization that would be responsible for these very trades.

right... If you mould the CCA, one of the selves will have to be removed when triggered. expert is needed. or manually

But if you set only SL or TP, there is no CCA.

 
220Volt:
Why don't the guys on the amex see how things work on the forex market? :)
The amex guys don't think of the market as a forex market. ;)
 
HideYourRichess:
You don't think it's the market, do you? ;)

The volumes are not the same ))

And on the topic of the topic, I am surprised by the unwillingness to meet the client, maybe that's the result. What turnover on the exchange is made with MT? So how do you know that as in MT is the truth in the last instance.

Made a great tool for dealing, good. You go to the exchange, you have to adjust the client.

 

The suggestion "don't like using SL and TP, use stop orders" looks rather sly on the part of those talking about force majeure protection.

If pending orders are not linked without control, they may both be executed, and it is already a position. And not just about force majeure. Don't forget, not everyone has a 24/7 server.

So I too do not quite understand the persistence of the developers on the issue of CCA. I hope the stock market will clear up a lot of questions...

Документация по MQL5: Стандартные константы, перечисления и структуры / Торговые константы / Свойства ордеров
Документация по MQL5: Стандартные константы, перечисления и структуры / Торговые константы / Свойства ордеров
  • www.mql5.com
Стандартные константы, перечисления и структуры / Торговые константы / Свойства ордеров - Документация по MQL5
Reason: