Question on working with stops: classic on limiters + stops integrated into position - page 7
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
So it all comes down to CCA warrants again.
MQ stated long ago that this is not going to happen.
And the last attribute of CCA orders is stops.
In fact, a stop or profit on a limit order is pure IF DONE. However, IF DONE and its child orders work for the same initial order amount but in MT-5, the limit order's child stops and profits work for the entire position. Which is what is perplexing.
In fact, a stop or profit on a limit order is pure IF DONE. It is just that IF DONE and its child orders work for the same initial order volume, while in MT-5 the limit order's child stops and profits work for the entire position. Which bewilders.
Think about it - it cannot be any other way!
In netting, the stop and profit of a position belong to the position, and as a concept they are inseparable. That's what a stoploss and takeprofit of a position is, not of any order or any part of a position, but of the whole position.
If you think about it, it cannot be otherwise! It means that when a stop triggers, the position volume is filled to the full - that is, to the volume of the position.
Your client made a sucker expression and expressed a complaint - why, when a stop loss belonging to the position is triggered, the entire position is closed. But how could such a thought come into your brain?
He was told in Russian that if you do not want the whole position to be closed, put a stop-loss order and a limit order on the volume that is necessary for closing. And do not use any stoplots and takeprofits for the position.
So, why pour over the obvious things from nothing to nothing.
In fact, a stop or profit on a limit order is pure IF DONE. It is just that IF DONE and its child orders work for the same initial order volume, while in MT-5 the limit order's child stops and profits work for the entire position. Which is what is perplexing.
As they say, you can hit yourself in the nuts with your own fat :)
On the other hand, there is a number of traders who got used to the current state of affairs. And they want protective orders to protect their entire trading position. This is the profit that comes to us from the invested money.
You may think that the position (for example) in its current state has a result of 20-50 orders. We have to protect the position from a sudden (who knows) change of exchange rates, electricity failure, computer glitch and so on.
Then (according to your rules) we have to move 100 stops, to shift them by 10 points each?
Well, I as a programmer it is not a problem, but the handbrake will hang from such luck.
In MetaTrader 5 the integrated stops are an excellent and powerful mechanism for easy position management. We need to see beyond the benefits and consequences of implementing improvements. We are talking, as usual, about the effects on the scale of millions of traders.
Unfortunately, single traders are far from understanding this, and most brokers don't see beyond their local benefits either and often act exactly the opposite.
To put it in simple peasant terms, simplifying a single point gives +100500 users.
By the way, for those not in the know: The introduction of integrated stops and a simplified trading model in FX Charts -> MetaTrader 4 was one of the major advantages over the then "classic trading approach". This made it possible to go out and attract the mass trader.
In MetaTrader 5, integrated stops are an excellent and powerful mechanism for easy position management. We need to see further benefits and implications of the improvements. It is, as usual, about the effects on the scale of millions of traders.
Unfortunately, individual traders are far from understanding this, and most brokers do not see beyond their local benefits either, and often act exactly the opposite.
To put it in a more worker-peasant way, simplifying one point gives +100500 users.
Just by introducing integrated stops back in FX Charts, you got traders so hooked on this needle that now you yourself suffer from misunderstanding.
It is easier for me because I originally considered integrated stops as market exit orders in case of force majeure, but most traders based their strategies on them. It happened so because OCO orders themselves are in fact TP programming without any programming.
The ease of use has created a lot of near-forex notions that have no relation to the trading itself, but only to the implementation in the MetaTrader platform.
Changing the rules in MT, you thereby break all these pseudo TCs. Of course they can be modified to fit the new rules (after all, at the end of any implementation, trade anyway), but the very act of rewiring, when a strategy is taken out of the implementation itself and the trading advantage is derived not by direct methods, but by statistical methods (without understanding where the profit comes from) is very, very problematic.
You've got me completely confused with your warrants. I just poked around in the documentation and didn't really understand it. Sorry, dumb.
I know the three basic types of orders, the most used, and a lot of specific ones.
Market - market, an order to buy (Bay by offer) or sell (Sell by bid) a share at the current price. Only the volume is indicated.
Limit - pending, an order to buy (Bay) at or below a specified price, or sell (Sell) at or above a specified price. The price and volume are specified.
Stop - pending, an order to buy or sell by regular Market order when the print price specified in the Stop order appears. The stop price and volume are specified.
Are these, the basic orders, available in MT5?
Well, then it's not clear what the crying is about. Maybe I'm not aware of something.
OK, can I run a scenario like this with these orders.
Buy 200 shares on the market, put a sell limit on 100 shares at a price 1 quid higher than I bought, and put a sell limit on another 100 shares at a price 2 quid higher. Obviously, this is not one order but three in a row. Is it possible to do this?
Renat:
Кстати, кто не в теме: введение интегрированный стопов и упрощение торговой модели в системах FX Charts -> MetaTrader 4 было одним из важных преимуществ, по сравнению с существовавшей тогда "классическим торговым подходом". Это позволило выйти и привлечь массового трейдера.
Unfortunately, solo traders are far from understanding this, and brokers for the most part do not see beyond their local benefits either and often act exactly the opposite.
That's it, that's it, you think you are the smartest and you impose your rules on the market. The developer imposes his standards on the brokers. Nonsense!
But it is not. You've made a great theanalysis and MTS. And that's what attracted the mass trader. In particular, for many years I myself insisted on implementing MT in our bank for this very reason. And we could not implement MT precisely because MT in terms of position management was not suitable for dealing, but only for kitchens. And our request as a client was exactly to remove traps and other nonsense. You are now teaching the client what he needs. As a result we got some hybrid that neither banks nor traders who are hooked on MT-4 are happy with. The clients of brokerage companies do not switch to MT-5 and stay on MT-4, and this is a fact.
That's it, that's it, you think you are the smartest and you impose your rules on the market. The developer imposes the standards on the brokers. Nonsense!
No way. You've made a great theanalysis and MTS. And that's what attracted the mass trader. In particular, for many years I myself insisted on implementing MT in our bank for this very reason. And we could not implement MT precisely because MT in terms of position management was not suitable for dealing, but only for kitchens. And our request as a client was exactly to remove traps and other nonsense. You are now teaching the client what he needs. As a result we have a hybrid that neither banks nor traders hooked on MT-4 are happy with. CA clients do not switch to MT-5 and stay on MT-4, and this is a fact.
You are aiming lower than the waterline, so what is the main disgrace (that needs to be corrected in order to use the platform as they say among the people)?
From previous posts I understand that it is integrated stops?
If they are removed, the client may be taken with a warm hand, as the saying goes, hit a tick lower than the current one by 1000 pips, the client will lose the deposit and ala ulu.
Then I selectively restore some people who were not hunted (reasoning that there was a non-market quote), and I emptied pockets of unwanted, great, and most importantly, everything is correct.