NFA bans locking from 15 May 2009 - page 3
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
Unequivocally. Any prohibition of this kind is for the benefit of the brokerage company and to the detriment of the client!
And I think it is outright hypocrisy to claim that it is done "for the good of the client"!
As it was stated some time ago, increasing night spreads for crosses - to "optimize trading tactics, systematize and benefit traders".
With lots it's the same situation
I completely agree!
If you don't know how to use this trading technique, then yes, of course, there is no point. It is those who do know how to use it that are being shut out. And apparently they can do it very well, judging by the MFA's reaction...
Can I give you an example of this "trading technique"? And a demonstration that it is better than closing and then acting on the same signals that were used to "break the loc".
Trading is mathematics. A lock, in terms of mathematics, is nonsense. Therefore "breaking a lock" is shamanic dances with tambourine.
This should have been done a long time ago. If one advisor tells you to buy and another tells you to sell, it is wise not to do anything - you will save two Wednesdays and the difference in spreads. That is, you should be grateful to the NFA for encouraging you to make a painful but necessary change of strategy.
I agree that in their attempts to protect dummies, NFA and others often create additional problems. But the original intent is unequivocally good. And the implementation in this case is not the worst either.
There is no spread savings here. This is a fairy tale for nerds.
If we have an open position and consider two options (assuming that the orders are executed without requotes and slips):
1. Close the position from the market.
Open an opposite position and close it INTERACTIVELY (exactly opposite OrederCloseBy(), not each in turn).
So economically the result will be the same - don't believe it, check it. At least MT4 platform works this way.
.
Try to correctly synchronize the work of several EAs that trade on the same pair
. They open positions at different times, with different lots. And the number and the composition of Expert Advisors is inconsistent.
I do not want to say that the task is impossible to solve, but it is at least not simple and losses from its solution may occur
than from lots.
.
Here is a small example: I have opened a long position long time ago and it is in profit with a goal that is reached by 1000 points with 0.1 lot.
For the same pair, the Expert Advisor signals and wants to open in a lower TF on the pullback with a target of 150p 1.0 lot.
What should the EA do? Close the position opened by the trader and open an opposite one with the lot equal to the difference (1.0 - 0.1 = 0.9),
Remember the parameters (lot, pair, direction, comments, magic number) of the position that he closed, and after the trade is completed, return everything back to its place?
What if there are several of these positions (in one direction)? And several Expert Advisors? And where is the economy of spreads, for which it was supposedly invented?
Locke, in mathematical terms, is nonsense. Accordingly, "breaking the lock" is a shamanic tambourine dance.
I completely agree with the highlighted.
But I for example do not use lock as a method, but it is often (incomplete) formed by itself, which I do not see any sin.
.
The main thing is that we just have to accept it.
>> we're not the ones ordering the music.
Stealing is nonsense both logically and mathematically. It's not about maths.
How else can they be executed? It is the only possible and universally honest way. Any other options are fantasies about the market.
So that 2+2=4. In both cases, that would be 4-2=2. Otherwise we get 2+2=4 in one case, and 4-2=1 client + 1 broker.
Can I give you an example of this "trading technique"? And a demonstration that it is better than closing and then acting on the same signals that were used to "break the loca".
Trading is mathematics. A lock, in terms of mathematics, is nonsense. Therefore, "breaking the lock" is the shamanic tambourine dance.
Sometimes I use the lock - I'll explain why and how:
I entered the market and set a stop - but it's clear that the market is volatile, and after some time of movement we have more technical information (resistance lines, breakout figures, etc.) - this is where the lock comes in handy. After all, if you have a stop - and it gets beaten out - we're out of the market, and the lock gives us time to think (sometimes "think" for a few days). Of course you can say, that a lousy trader will make a lousy decision again and will exit a lock with double losses - but it's another topic.
>> I hope I've made myself clear.
Can I give you an example of this "trading technique"? And a demonstration that it is better than closing and then acting on the same signals that were used to "break the loca".
Trading is mathematics. A lock, in terms of mathematics, is nonsense. Therefore, the "breaking the lock" is a shamanic tambourine dance.
You can explain and demonstrate it, but it will take more than one page of posts. If you this trading technique is still enclosed in inverted commas, well, what can I say... you don't have it. I'm sorry. Sincerely. Can you give examples and demonstrate your practical work? I can. We can compare, no problem. Trading is not naked mathematics, it is an art. So it is profoundly fucked up what mathematicians and mathematician themselves think about locs.
For the record... All the great traders opened opposite positions. Read Livermore, for example. I'm rereading it now - a treasure trove. Manipulating counter positions is one of his tricks. He studied the market, the behavior of financiers, human fear and greed (etc.), rather than driving the market into a very narrow framework of mathematics. You wouldn't call him dumb by any means. By the way, there's also mention of the passing of laws against traders and how they were presented to the general public... in defence of the interests of ordinary Americans, of course.
You want to believe in the purity of the NFA's intentions, well, the flag is in your hands. Even though you're already carrying it... Take a second one, will you? You will not be deterred from your righteous path.
Personal: if you still haven't learned how to benefit from counter positions, there's no way you can call someone a "teapot". Now that really is nonsense. Sorry, outraged by the inconsistency.
It is possible to explain and demonstrate, but it would take more than one page of posts.
....Trading is not naked mathematics, it is an art. So it is profoundly fucked up what exactly mathematicians and mathematician themselves think about locs.
Just for your information... All the great traders have opened opposite positions.
+1.
Lock is first of all a method of loss limitation, especially useful for MTS - you don't need to remember your trade history before the trade ends. It is also convenient to use lock to protect against force majeure (broken connection with the server).
Lock is primarily a method for limiting losses. It is also convenient to use lock to protect against force majeure (break of connection with the server).
Right. The situation with false positives (short squeeze, collecting stops, etc.) deserves special attention. The lock allows a short trawl to take profit from a counter-trend. The simplest situation is news against the trend. Price will always return to the trend. On the lock - profit in both directions.