NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 23
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
And I wonder what the platform developers are planning to do about these changes?
Comrade, what difference does it make, we won't know, it's not today, tomorrow we'll go wall-to-wall
And all actions described are solved by SL, TP and pending orders.
That's right, they do. But not always technically or temporally possible.
In the above example we can see that the task at hand is solved by one action with one order at one time, without any subsequent intervention. The same could have been done by a Stop Loss to an open Sell position and a new Sell Stop or by opening a new order in the market, but at different times waiting for the stop execution, or by linked orders (if..., then...).
Again with the strategies...
*
OK, let's look at it as some kind of strategy. (although I personally consider it a tactic).
We eat a good trader, and we watch the MM. That is, we set stops based on acceptable losses.
Let's say we get 50 pips. We lose 2%.
In normal trading stop triggered, money lost...
What if... halfway through, we put a hold on half of the open position?
Counting...
1. We guessed the direction, the position went in profit, let all the rest be forgotten and deleted.
Gut.
2. Prices declined, the pending order was caught, but then it went in the right direction,
at the end, they took profit, though less.
Gut.
3. Prices have broken through the stop-loss. The put, or rather opposite one, was closed either at the stop level of the first one
or took a bit more on inertia... Gut?
Gut!!!
Why good? Because we optimize it according to the MM!
*
Another good thing, which is not noticeable, or just can not understand...
It is preservation of positions (toft), which I call "preservation of disposition".
of positions and orders...
With netting a position bites off a part of it forever!
While a temporary counter may take its place and after closing it we continue to hold
needed (the first one) to the full volume, until we hit the "shifft" at the next lock, or by placing a stopper at #3 in b\u
close the first one, so it's safe to turn around, and the best we can do is break out on the stop...
Sorry to intrude, but you seem to have a chain of self-deceptions resulting from half-hearted decisions
And the vast majority of small traders are on MT, which has locs. Percentages to be voiced?
Don't confuse the soft with the warm...
You understood perfectly well that we are talking about professionals, professional platforms and other pros that do not have a loco.
However, it's not less likely to drain...
That in turn suggests that the drain is not just a locomotive. ;)
As for the position of a trader, my EA may be of a different type than the one described above.
I am waiting for a constructive response.
Do you think that calling many people's tactics nonsense is normal?
I do not see the subject of constructive...
*
Also, you, and many others, have laid out your version of the layout considering it to be a proven axiom.
Alas, it is not, and the lay-out is quite different...
Some strategies again...
I'm talking about lock tactics as part of a trading strategy.
OK, let's consider it as some sort of strategy. (though I personally consider it a tactic)
We eat a good trader, and we watch the MM. That is, we set stops based on acceptable losses.
Let's say we get 50 pips. We lose 2%.
In normal trading stop triggered, money lost...
What if... halfway through, we put a hold on half of the open position?
Counting...
1. We guessed the direction, the position went in profit, let all the rest be forgotten and deleted.
Gut.
2. Prices declined, the pending order was caught, but then it went in the right direction,
at the end, they took profit, though less.
Gut.
3. Prices have broken through the stop-loss. The put, or rather opposite one, was closed either at the stop level of the first one
or took a bit more on inertia... Gut?
Gut!!!
Why good? Because we optimize it according to the MM!
Yay, constructive!
Did I get the intro correctly:
- We open the buy with 1.0 lot, 50 pips, no TP.
- at the distance of 25 points below the open price we set a Sell Stop with 0.5 lot, no sl sl, no TP
The rules for closing are not clearly described, so I have omitted them. Is the rest correct?
We switch to the no-lock tactic:
- open 2 buy positions of 0.5 lots each (yes, here I agree that opening 1 lot and then closing half is easier - p.6 per lock - but this would solve the SL for part of the position (now in mt there is none)): sl one = 50, sl second = 25, no tp.
From here on, all the breakdowns are the same, but driven by the same position.
Well, I did manage to get something out of the conversation.
What is the defence? And why can't there be one in a lockless tactic?
Again, any set of orders in a lockstep tactic can be repeated with SL, TP and pending orders.
The result will not be worse (the same or better).
I don't want to get involved in another wave of "the religious war", nevertheless I will ask.
Do you trade ONLY intraday or ONLY mid-term?
If you are trending this way for about a week, but your favorite indicator on the 7-minute chart shows a pullback, will you close a trend position, open a reverse position and after taking the profit, you open a trend position again?
Somehow all discussions always come down to extremes - mathematical validity or a strategy only on Loks.
As I see it, opening a short term position on a pullback and leaving a "trending" position is not a Lock, but two different strategies, in your persistent PlusMinus it's a Lock.
Yes there are those that open the opposite position K already open. So stipulate "that". For NFA unfortunately there is no difference, but we will find a way out in MT5 too :)
That's right, they do. But not always technically or temporally possible.
>> There's point 7. I agree. That's good.
True, all of the above only applies to manual trading (or interference with a machine).
Is there an argument for locke in the EA? Now I'm just curious.
Sorry to interfere, but imho you have a whole chain of self-deception, that is a consequence of half-measures.
It is your right to think so, just as it is my right not to accept your opinion...
If only because I've been following my opinion for a little over five years now.
*
Um... I was going to finish my post, but I got very curious about the mythical self-deception.
Reveal your variant for example in terms of MM optimisation. And point out where I am deceiving myself.
And in that version of MM there's also clause 4 and clause 5, but that's work... and control...
I don't want to get involved in another wave of "religious war", but I'll ask you anyway.
Do you trade ONLY intraday or ONLY mid-term?
I don't really support any of the warring sides ;)
I'm not against loco, and I use it myself. I just don't consider it a vital tool.
I don't want to get involved in another wave of "religious war", but I'll ask you anyway.
Do you trade ONLY intraday or ONLY medium term?
If you are trending this way for about a week, but your favorite indicator on the 7-minute chart shows a pullback, will you close a trend position, open a reverse position and after taking the profit, you open a trend position again?
Somehow all discussions always come down to extremes - mathematical validity or a strategy only on Loks.
As I see it, opening a short term position on a pullback and leaving a "trending" position is not a Lock, but two different strategies, in your persistent PlusMinus it's a Lock.
Yes there are those that open the opposite position K already open. So stipulate "that". For NFA, unfortunately, there is no difference, but we will find a way out in MT5 :)
I showed you screenshots of such trades !
I showed screens of similar work !
--
in MT5 there will be no LOCK!
--
p.s..
The chairman of the collective farm appears on the stage at the club (in the midst of the harvest, spare parts, fuel, lack of staff, lots of problems...)
says: XXX is no longer standing
he throws his cap on the ground and says: "One less problem".
---