Question on working with stops: classic on limiters + stops integrated into position - page 3

[Speculate. Su]

For everyone "now" and for the future for others.

Gentlemen, for all people, as well as those who consider themselves traders and even more so programmers, the simplest logical statement should be clear: if - than (if, ... then ...)

My position is as follows:

At the heart of all brokerage is the notion of the "Order" (order) of the client. This is a basic and fundamental concept.

The Order, I repeat, at its core, contains: the instrument, the volume and the conditions.

if - than

If "...the Stop Loss and Take Profit levels will be overwritten", then it is a violation of MY order => a violation by the broker of the provisions under which it operates.

A simple example in the picture.

The system is covering me for 300000 on the take profit of the last order.

I understand that these are the terms of operation (functioning) of this system. And by using it, I agree with its functionality.

I am talking about something else:

The operating principle does not correspond to basic brokerage practice.

Basically, it is an order. I did not give an order to close 300,000. It was given by the system itself. (yes, because that's how it's set up). But that is exactly what nonsense is.

See pic, what is an order in MT5.

The logic is simple (if...then...): if the system itself changes the volume, then it is its order, not mine.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

Sieg:

For everyone 'now' and for the future for others.

Basically, it's an order. I did not give an order to close 300000. The system itself gave it.

The logic is simple (if...then...):if the system itself changes the volume , it is its order, not mine.

Calm down, please, and work with MetaTrader 5 a little longer. All orders are given solely by the trader.

I'll point out again:

1. Classic limit-based stop mode.
   
   Everything is simple here and there is no question - the trader places the orders himself and they hang in a bunch to be executed. The trader doesn't care about a bunch of orders - he or she is used to it and it's more comfortable for him or her.
   
   
2. Hybrid mode of integrated SL/TP stops into position.
   
   The trader agrees to this mode of operation and binds "stops for the full position volume" and allows them to run automatically for the position. With each subsequent order, the trader confirms or removes the previously placed global stops on the position.
   
   That is, it is the trader who issues a clear order "yes, I confirm the previously issued or put a new global stop level on a position" and there is no suggestion to do anything on the part of the server/broker.
   
   The advantage for the trader is that he does not need to manage a bunch of limit orders and feels very comfortable managing a single position with integrated stops. The trader is not forced into a hybrid mode - he/she can use both of them. For example, he can place a global stop loss on a position and use limiters to buy in to the main position.
   

You just don't understand and start drawing conclusions based on misunderstood documentation.

[Anatoli Kazharski]

Sieg:

For everyone 'now' and for the future for others.

...

Starting from the first figure. In your scheme use pending orders instead of Take Profit at the same levels. In this case Sell Limit.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

papaklass:
So how do we increase a position if the current market price is at a distance shorter than the StopLevel from the stop levels of the position without changing those stop levels?

Use Limiters, if conditions allow.

But don't forget that freezing is what it is for(if it is used in OTC markets, for example ), not to change orders when they are close to triggering. This is why the question is asked incorrectly.

[Speculate. Su]

Yeah, no, Renat,

I feel fine :)

I'm not worried... so I don't really have anything to be nervous about...

The main thing is something else.

The situation is incredibly simple:

1. First, the use of simple limiters as stops, is a step backwards, not forwards, in relation to the progress you are talking about. Even in relation to osos and if|done orders...

And secondly, you keep trying to explain the system to me (or how to get around it), but say nothing in relation to the eligibility of such inheritance and the extension to the whole position of the stops and tees of the last order.

I take the liberty of recalling the 1st sentence of my post: "how, in a program claiming to conduct operations in the stock market, can there be such an execution of client orders/orders".

And most importantly, you do not want to understand the main thing - there is no such order from the client. You should not associate the program with a trader. Are you aware that in some companies there is even insurance against technical failures of software.... Or the recent rows of lawsuits against major exchanges, precisely because of the processing of client orders....

The software is not the client. The client did not give such an order.

It is a functional (working property) of the system, its algorithm. Due to the emergence of the concept of "net position".

I tell you:" - the braking system is bad... Long braking distance...."

And you say to me, "Use the handheld ..... we did it on purpose, for smooth braking.... and you're telling me about safety....

I'm telling you: "The engine in the car is revving. You can't drive it."

And you say to me, "You started the car, it's your fault." ....

So it's like this.

A program that pretends to enter the stock market has no right to substitute/modify/amend by itself the client's orders/orders.

This is a faulty and flawed algorithm.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

This is blatant bullshit.

Read all my comments please. Especially about the trader specifying SL/TP in every order himself.

And get this through your head - "everything the client sends from his terminal is the client's trade order ". Windmills are fought elsewhere.

[Speculate. Su]

Renat:

This is blatant bullshit.

Read all my comments, please. Especially about the trader specifying SL/TP in every order himself.

Except for the VOLUME, which the trader does not specify.

Why in the world would the system stop the entire position.

There is no such order from the trader, Renat.

And there are absolutely clear indications of completely different volumes.

So what about the validity of such an algorithm?

And "nonsense", Renat, is when the trader gives a perfectly clear order to close 100000 at a certain price, and MT5 places the entire position of the client at this level. Now that's bullshit.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

There is little choice here: kindergarten, deliberate trolling or damage to some apparatus...

[Hide]

I do not know what the argument is about, but about the orders I would like to say the following. The logic behind the execution of Buy Stop and Sell Stop. As I was taught, on amex, stops are activated by the price of the last trade. Not by a bid or an ask, but by a flipper. As soon as the flipper appears in the stop, the order is converted into a market order. It's not clear what you mean by "price", what is the price?

[Speculate. Su]

Renat:
There is little choice here: kindergarten, deliberate trolling or damage to some apparatus...

Well, well...

That's what I thought.

The question about the eligibility of such an algorithm remains open.