Why have subscriptions been banned on the grounds of "too high a yield" ? - page 61
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
In markets with a tumbler, only marques buy at Asku and sell at Bid. And that depends on the volume of the gangs and the market. Limits are executed when they get the best and someone sends a counter-market.
It's like a collective farm market)) The gourds are sitting with potatoes for sale - each one has a table of costs. The women form a glass and have limited bids. A buyer comes (market order) and chooses the grandmother with the lowest price. If a headstock has less potatoes than it needs, it buys the remaining potatoes from the next headstock with the lowest price. This results in slippage, which causes the price to change.
If there are no buyers, no deals will be made and the dough will sit with potatoes.) If there is no dough, there will be no deals, even if there are buyers. I.e. a deal always happens between someone's market and someone else's limit price, but when the turn comes (it has become the best price). And the price only changes when a new trade at a different price than the previous one occurs. The price is Last.
Yes. But if you take a deeper look, in fact, the bidders have Asc, the buyers have Bid. And until they are equal, the deal won't happen. So it turns out that the sell limit is executed Ask, but only when the Ask is equal to the Bid, and therefore we can consider that it is executed on Bid. And if you add external suppliers to this scheme and assume that all their liquidity is given by limits, it becomes even more confusing.
That is what I have written. We could argue about the wording forever. The question is, why won't Metakvots make normal stop limits with limit setting worse than the market?
Sorki, I thought it was about introducing a new type of order.
The situation with limit orders can only be answered by the lines of a classic:
It cannot be measured by a yardstick,
It has a special fancy.
You just have to have faith in the office!
You cannot compare the stock market and the over-the-counter market. On an exchange, the price cannot go below the buy limit; on the forex, it can. The price crosses your buy limit and the company sends an order to the liquidity provider. While the order is going, the price can go back and at the time of arrival the provider does not have that price. So that is the crossing.
On the exchange market this is impossible because there is a single platform and orders do not go anywhere.
It's all very simple and logical.
Well, fairy tales have begun))
ZS: Does your order go on foot through Guadeloupe to the liquidity provider?
Here come the fairy tales))
No, it's not a fairy tale. It's the mt4 DT specifics.
Watch the trick, I'll show you.
Rann:
You cannot compare the stock market and the over-the-counter market. On the exchange, the price cannot go below the buy limit, on the forex it can. The price crosses your buy limit and the company sends an order to the liquidity provider. While the order is going, the price can go back and at the time of arrival the provider does not have that price. So much for the crossing.
And then - Boom!
DT has nothing to do with it. MT does not provide such an opportunity. You need your own and very serious development to implement it. That is why only two companies have it now.
So it turns out for execution of fictitious limits through the liquidity provider, there may be no liquidity, but it is always available in the company!
in short, the issue of watching your limit inside the spread of the company (two) is pure fetish, when the question of liquidity is not resolved
No, it's not a fairy tale. It's a special feature of the mt4.
Watch the trick, I'll show you.
And then bam!
I don't get it.So it turns out for execution of fictitious limits through the liquidity provider, there may be no liquidity, but it is always available in the company
in short, the topic of watching your limit inside the spread of the company (two) is pure fetish, when the question of liquidity is not resolved
No, it's not a fairy tale. It's a special feature of the mt4.
Watch the trick, I'll show you.
And then bam!
I don't get it.So it turns out for execution of fictitious limits through the liquidity provider, there may be no liquidity, but it is always available in the company
in short, the theme of watching your limit inside the spread of the company is pure fetish, with an unsolved issue of liquidity
It's been known for some time AND even generally accepted (!). Too late to be surprised. Liquidity providers have strange privileges. They are not matched in the market on general terms. They are first (! insider?) sent market orders and they execute them or not at will.)
Well it's been known for a long time, too late to be surprised. Liquidity providers have strange privileges. They are not matched in the market on a general basis. They are first (insider?) sent market orders and they either execute them at will or not. :)
Or maybe someone just doesn't accept limits ? )
In short, in the light of this, the limit within the spread of the company ( two ) (c) turns simply into an object for Dickfix to investigate
and I'm also tickled by the 1:500 leverage:
which bank gives credit to Petya Ivanov from Uryupinsk to open a 1 lot position with a depo of 500 quid?
ok 500, 1:100 surprises me a lot too )
and I'm also tickled by the 1:500 leverage:
which bank gives credit to Petya Ivanov from Uryupinsk to open a 1 lot position with a depo of 500 quid?
ok 500, 1:100 surprises me a lot too )
By the way, it is a pity that we have not seen attempts to prove Hrenfiks right, by opening a pamphlet with offers
Let's wait for