NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 38
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
O-o-o-o-o-o-o-o!!! What a mighty mighty system! It's not even artificial intelligence, it's cooler, it's divine conducting itself recognises the magical locking areas with complex boundaries that quotes roll down, and destroys the locks. The programmer didn't write any such thing and can't explain it, it does it by itself... Oooo-ooooo, shaitan...
Idle chatter.
...
It is the "turnover of staff" that is the key to the success of these offices (come-slip-gone).
...After two years, too, I made a small profit. MTS added a lot of confidence.
wise писал(а) >>
... . Можно математически доказать, что она лучше. Вариант поломки канала мы не рассматриваем !!!. То есть, в идеальном канале, математически выгодней открываться от стенок канала к противоположной, !!!, без всяких локов.
No words. Who would argue. Give it the perfect channel for a week. You don't have to work until you retire.
strategy FIONA and the channel breaker are not comparable by the sense.The morning channel is a trap for (... ...), type in what you need. The bounces are at 5p inwards, stop 10p outwards. Breakers at 10pts outside, and stop later 5,10pts inside. Lined up - like a shooting wall. And a small observation. Why does this channel often go to 4p; 11p; 21+ and back. Fiona has a 99% guarantee that the price reaches the boundary and 60.70 to both. Explain the similar meaning here.
"Maths" in this case is what? A special ability to turn off logic, based on a lack of mathematical knowledge?
What prevents you from closing and drinking beer, and the next day you go back to the trend without looking at the price?
"Materiel" in this case is - duty advice to a leaked trader. You live and learn... .
What prohibits you from just closing up and going for a beer? - The key word is "without looking at the price". And why do I need your maths?
Funny. Here are plenty of publications that ignore the psychology of the Article - https://www.mql5.com/ru/articles/mt4/
We are talking about MTS - mechanical trading strategies. They have no room for a trader's psychological equilibrium. Do you want to learn? Don't open a trade at all, it's cheaper than grazing a lock.
Or maybe you like to preceed the sixth point by closing the profitable part of lock and not paying attention to equity. Lock is irreplaceable here, it creates psychological balance and is good for your health, as they say. Prohibiting locs is an obvious strike against the sixth point.
Ridiculous. If there are plenty of publications that ignore psychology, What should I join them ? But I'm different. - Not an idiot.
We're talking about MTS - mechanical trading strategies. - I mean, two lines of code without any fuss makes the procedure. What difference does it make with hands or code. It's essentially mechanical.
it's cheaper than grazing a loch. - If you don't graze a meadow, there will be no clover in the stable. Learning virtually is the lot of mathematicians.
Somebody tell me without thinking!!! Can we put on the counter or not??? If so, under what conditions?
You can. But with stops and a system. To sleep in peace.
Will someone tell me without any punditry!!! Can you put the counter or not??? If so, under what conditions???
I wrote above that my broker forbids the use of lots, but that is not the problem. Another one has popped up. Now I can't put two opposite pendants (e.g. for a channel break), not to mention the fact that when an open position needs a stop order at the stop level of this very position. I have contacted CA's support department and they have replied that it is a MT4 problem and not their limitation (as they have only prohibited traps) and they have promised to redirect the problem to their developers. At the moment we do not know anything.
In principle, the situation is clear. The problem of traps (triggering of pending orders during active position) was solved simply - we should not allow setting the opposite pending order. Otherwise, the server has to analyze where and how each pending order is set, and if a trader gets a lot as a result of its triggering. Even if the trader places a pending order and not a lock, what guarantee is there that the trader will not delete the stop on the position we have? There is only one way out - to allow pending orders in different directions, but to cancel them when they are triggered. After all, all brokerage companies easily cancel deals because of "non-market prices" (although in my opinion it should cause more outrage). So what are the moral problems about cancellation of pending orders if there is a clear indication in brokerage company rules about cancellation of lots?
I wrote above that my broker forbids the use of lots, but that is not the problem. Another one has popped up. Now I can't put two opposite pendants (e.g. for a channel break), not to mention the fact that when an open position needs a stop order at the stop level of this very position. I have contacted CA's support department and they have replied that it is a MT4 problem and not their limitation (as they have only prohibited traps) and they have promised to redirect the problem to their developers. At the moment nothing is known yet.
The situation is clear. The problem of losing lots (triggering of an opposing pending order during an active position) has been solved very easy - we have not allowed to place an opposing pending order. Otherwise, the server has to analyze where and how each pending order is set, and if a trader gets a lot as a result of its triggering. Even if the trader places a pending order and not a lock, what guarantee is there that the trader will not delete the stop on the position we have? There is only one way out - to allow pending orders in different directions, but to cancel them when they are triggered. After all, all brokerage companies easily cancel deals because of "non-market prices" (although in my opinion it should cause more outrage). So what is the problem with abolishing a pending order if there is a clear indication in brokerage company rules about losing lots?
Why don't you want to put opposing pendants through an EA?
Why don't you want to put opposite pending orders through your Expert Advisor?
Who says I don't want to? I have a special Expert Advisor ready for that - an Expert Advisor to open a position at a given price.
But now many other EAs have suffered - those that have put two pendants at the same time. They have to be rewritten.