Is there a need for a lock in MT5? - page 52
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
What do you all always think, are you children or what? I'm telling you: There are working systems without negative trades, based on locks. No. You think something and that's why locks are useless. What do you call it? ................
What do you want?
Let's leave the arguments good or bad, etc.
What do you all always think, are you children or what? I'm telling you: There are working systems without negative trades, based on locks. No. You think something and that's why locks are useless. What do you call it? ................
>> oh, my God. Well nobody's saying it's useless to you if it's written on your lokas!
Are you guys faking or are you nuts about your locks? That's not what I'm talking about.
Oh dear... Well, no one is saying it's useless for you if it's written on your locks!
Are you guys faking it or are you just crazy about your locks? That's not what we're talking about.
Useless thing to discuss anything on the forums, just a stupid waste of time. It all comes down to discussing personalities....
Look, mathematicians, don't worry about my swaps, I know how to worry about them myself. In my case, I'm making money on the lock and I'm making more money on the lock. You're asking me to take a LOSS . And so it is every time. About half the trades, even for the most successful trader, are LOSSING.Who needs to be taught to count? Accountants, that's ridiculous.
Since you kind of answered me:
First - calm down, excessive emotion rarely contributes to results.
Secondly - I do not care about your swaps - I do not care about them, trade as you see fit.
Thirdly - as everyone reads this thread, including newcomers, statements of this kind You have to prove it.. So let's be more specific. Did I understand your example correctly? You open a buy position when the price touches the upper thin line, then an opposite sell on an equal size position when it touches the lower thin line and then you break the lock (you close both positions - from the example above it is impossible to draw a reliable conclusion about the decision at the point of breaking the lock, so this is my assumption) when the price reaches the upper thick line.
If so, then I argue that:
1. The strategy is equivalent to a simple stop triggering and NOT making a decision before the price reaches the level of breaking a lock - you know it beforehand (either by price or by time)
2. You get the loss at the break point (not profit as you say).
3. in this case, the triggering of the stop is more profitable by the amount of swaps paid for holding open positions.
You have the possibility of either prove with a calculator you either have to admit that you got profit You either get a profit at this point by breaking a lock (by closing BOTH positions), or you get too much emotionality and empty phrases and have to study arithmetic in high school curriculum.
If you close ONLY ONE position and not BOTH, then this is equivalent to the subsequent opening of the position in the appropriate direction, with the appropriate sizing. It is not possible to check the result of your example. But at the point of closing one of the positions on the plus side, you will get plus in the balance, but double minus in equity. If at the moment the trader wishes to withdraw money from the trading account, his equity will be quickly checked against the balance.)
In other words, the absence of negative balance does not mean that the result is a profit: at the same point in time, both equity and balance must be compared. I think it's this fact that doesn't get through to lockers or is deliberately ignored by them....
Good luck.
Uh-huh. Whining is one thing. No one tells lockers that lock is evil. They try to explain to them that everything can be solved without locks and like don't cry, everything will be fine. Nope, they persistently flood all threads with their whining and stupid examples of primary schools arithmetic.
Use the 4th, who's stopping you? We have been told a hundred times: NO ONE is going to close 4. They will co-exist.
They're fed up with their sniveling.
What do you mean? One year the 4 will live and then what? It's not like I'm gonna stop trading in a year.
And all these terms about netting and accounting don't mean anything to me. In any case it will be mega complicated.
The result instead of a simple scheme will be a technology of cosmic complexity.
That is, the absence of a minus in the balance does NOT indicate a profit in the result: both balance and equity must be compared at the same point in time. I think it's this fact that the lockers don't get the message or are deliberately ignored by them....
Good luck.
25 again! Here is the scheme of losing 100 points in MT5 while working with a fixed lot
because of the inability to hold both positions
http://forum.alpari.ru/post1524963-274.html
Like who? Well, the 4 will last a year and then what? It's not like I'm going to give up trading in a year.
And all these terms about netting and accounting don't mean anything to me. In any case it will be mega complicated.
The result instead of a simple scheme will be a technology of cosmic complexity.
Who told you a year? The developers are just saying the opposite. Moreover, the logic here is not OR, but AND. I.e. the 4 will be there for now.
Since you sort of answered me :
Firstly - calm down, excessive emotion rarely contributes to the result.
Secondly - I do not care about your swaps - I do not care about them, trade as you see fit.
Third - since everyone reads this branch, including newbies, such statements as You have to prove it.. So let's be more specific - did I understand your example correctly? You open a buy position when the price touches the upper thin line, then an opposite sell on an equal size position when it touches the lower thin line and then you break the lock (you close both positions - from your example we cannot make a valid conclusion about the decision at the break-even point, so this is my assumption) when the price reaches the upper thick line.
If yes, then I argue that:
1. The strategy is equivalent to a simple stop triggering and NOT making a decision before the price reaches the level of breaking a lock - you know it beforehand (either by price or by time)
2. You get the loss at the break point (not profit as you say).
3. in this case, the triggering of the stop is more profitable by the amount of swaps paid for holding open positions.
You have the possibility of either prove with a calculator you either have to admit that you got profit You have either to close BOTH positions at this point and destroy the lock or you have to tell them you are too emotional and too full of shit and go to school to study arithmetic.
If you close ONLY ONE position and not BOTH, then this is equivalent to the subsequent opening of the position in the appropriate direction, with the appropriate sizing. It is not possible to check the result of your example. But at the point of closing one of the positions on the plus side, you will get plus in the balance, but double minus in equity. If at the moment the trader wishes to withdraw money from the trading account, his equity will be quickly checked against the balance.)
In other words, the absence of negative balance does not mean that the result is a profit: at the same point in time, both equity and balance must be compared. I think it's this fact that doesn't get to the mind of the lockers or is deliberately ignored by them....
Good luck.
I apologise for the tone if it offended. If this is the first time you have visited this thread or any other reason, you will find a post where I have shown how hopeless locks are dealt with. The thick red line in that picture is just a decision boundary, if price had gone down you could have closed the buy +3 pips and then price would with high probability have gone to sell. Otherwise it's a hopeless lock and should be broken with a bounce from the level on a higher TF, better +2TF. For example as in the picture below.
The first bounce marked the level, on the second bounce, at the breakthrough of the red trend, close buy, at the breakdown of the blue - sell, the sum of closing both positions, there will be +, not minus, as in the case of a simple stop, that is the essence of the lock and it can not be realised in the powers of MT5. The arithmetic you see here is different, or rather it's not arithmetic but trading, which is not an exact science, but an art, so...
25 again! Here is a specific scheme in which working with a fixed lot loses 100p in mt5
due to inability to hold both positions
http://forum.alpari.ru/post1524963-274.html
Do you know how to count? There are not equivalent sizes right at the first lock - in MT4 there is 1 buy lot left and in MT5 1 sell lot - hence the difference in results is not a loss due to presence/absence of a lock, but due to ignorance of arithmetic.
That is, if you do net metering, you should get the same size in the same direction in both cases.
In this case in MT5 the analogue would be:
1. profit taking
2. net opening in the net side, which is 1 lot buy, not 1 lot sell.
Generally - back to school, second grade ;).... No offence...
>> Good luck.
Who told you a year? The developers are just saying the opposite. Moreover, the logic here is not OR, but AND. That is, the 4 will be there for now.
Until the end of 2010 100% And then? If metaquotes made an official announcement that they will continue to support MT4
then everyone would go away and the thread would be closed!
We don't have anything against mt5, as long as it's not a replacement for mt4, but a separate independent platform.
And about the logic, it looks something like this:
http://forum.alpari.ru/post1534720-160.html