Is there a need for a lock in MT5? - page 63
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
I do not quite get it: CloseBy will return a half of the spread of a position closed back to us, won't it?
Applying this function will not count the spread for the mutually overlapping volume of one pose, which is equivalent to half the mutually overlapping volume of two poses.
But, that's not the point. The locksmiths do not use CloseBy, but claim to be able to solve a profit-losing trade using locks. They lock it and wait for profit to "accrue" on one of the trades, and then close the position itself and open loss-making one. Then they lock it again and do it repeatedly. This "settling" causes the balance curve to grow while the equity falls below the plinth.
Reshetov писал(а) >>
...
With such a collapse, the balance curve rises and Equity falls below the plinth.
No way!
If that were the case, the number of requests to return locking ability would also be below the pl inth.
Wouldn't it?
Come on!
If that were the case, the number of requests to return the ability to lock was also below the plinth.
Isn't it so?
That's probably exactly what happened, isn't it? NFA probably got bored with the numerous complaints of lockers against brokers, such as "look I have a profit on my balance, and nasty kitchen guy put a margin call and squeezed all the money from the deposit". So they decided to do away with it: no loss, no problem.
Because this sort of thing more often than not turns into an epidemic, i.e. one showed how one can "punish" a broker, and the rest, without even understanding what the difference between equity and balance is, immediately rushed to "punish".
Come on!
If that were the case, the number of requests to return the ability to lock-in would also be below the plinth.
Wouldn't it?
Here we go again, "if only", "would be"... A page earlier, I asked without any bibliography to show where the evidence you were referring to is. There was no answer. But there's some completely unobvious conclusions here.
CloseBy is a lossless lock closure. I wrote about swaps above.
I almost wrote about lock and netting in October (I did not know about the MinLot nuance at that time) with a proof:
The virtual positions discussed back in the spring and mentioned at the end of the description of the same NettoTrading script are successfully used by NFA brokers now on MT4.
Here we go again, "if only", "would be"... A page earlier, I asked you without any bibliography to show me where the evidence you referred to is. There was no reply. But there's some completely unobvious conclusions.
"would be" ... is a perfectly logical answer to "as if".
What's the problem?
Naturally, if you don't read, let alone dig into what your opponent writes,
you won't get an answer, especially one that has been repeatedly cited in the pages of this forum.
You can go on waiting...
That's probably what happened, isn't it? NFA probably just tired of dealing with numerous complaints of lockers on brokers, such as "look I have a profit on my balance, and nasty kitchen guy put a margin call and all the money from the deposit squeezed". So they have decided to close this case at the root: no loss, no problem.
The reason is that such things often become an epidemic, i.e. one has shown how one can "punish" the broker, and the rest, not even knowing what the difference between the equity and the balance immediately rushed to "punish".
As far as I know, US companies were supposed to rollover positions.
Why it was allowed otherwise, who knows...
However, it would have been enough to remove the problem without cancelling the loca.
Ignorance of the law does not exempt the client from liability.
The mt4 platform is just like any other, but these "others" are not affected.
I assume that because of popularity of mt4 it has become a scapegoat, moreover a Russian one...
Equity in the mind of the average moron means the same thing as for us "Means".
i.e. the real state of affairs, which is actually described in the reference...
It is another matter not to allow s.d.ndos to trade without a certificate from the PDP.
But we residents of normal countries have nothing to do with it.
ZS: In view of recent developments, this time in Canada, companies closely associated with the U.S.,
there's confirmation of fears that there are thoughts of clamping down on retail forex altogether.
This is essentially parasitic income, out of thin air... and it's like a bone in the throat to many of the powers that be.
I almost wrote about lock and netting in October (I didn't know about the MinLot nuance then) with a proof
The case of Minlot is just a nuance which may occur in some brokerage companies where LotStep<MinLot. For me I cannot imagine a case when it is necessary to open with lot less than MinLot. I can choose Mini/Micro account according to deposit size, plus there is possibility to change leverage... If I wanted to play a different market with lots of profitability, I would have to choose a Mini-Cro account.
But about the rest:
Exactly for this reason it is very simple (this script) to make a netting performance from a non netting one. But it is incommensurably more difficult to do the opposite.
I agree with you completely and have said so myself, but at the same time I'm not a fan of locks, I'm just closer and more comfortable to a non netting platform. And if you have to "fight", you must "fight" for a "non netting" presentation, not for locks. The word "locs" should be forgotten altogether. Shouting about locs and their profitability discredits this "struggle" and moves directly in the opposite direction, towards the madhouse and primary school, which is what some egregious "locophiles" do.
"would be" ... is a perfectly logical response to "as if".
What's the problem with that?
Naturally, if you don't read, let alone understand , what your opponent is writing,
you won't get an answer, especially one that has been repeatedly cited in the pages of this forum.
You can go on waiting and on...
But I just politely asked for a link to the proof of profit extraction using the loc, no? Is it so hard to help a colleague, or religion does not allow?)
As for the rest:
I agree with you completely and have said so myself, but at the same time I am by no means a fan of locs, it's just the non netting platform that is closer and more convenient for me too. And if you have to "fight", you should "fight" for a "non netting" presentation, not for locks. The word "locs" should be forgotten altogether. Shouting about boats and their profitability discredits this "struggle" and moves in the opposite direction, in the direction of madhouse and primary schools, as some of the most infamous "locophiles" do.
A small but significant correction...
Locophiles don't run out with their AK-47s and slogans like "I'll mess you bourgeoisie up...".
;))) the paradox of any revolution: destroy all the rich, only the poor will remain, and forever.
Ahem... sorry... got distracted...
Now, the lockers in their masses, don't run around with a nagana, they just ask.
Everything else starts with a visit from nettings who, according to their own assurances, don't need the fucking lock,
and start teaching them the truth about life... with a lot of definitions and language...
Have you noticed?
You nettings are gone and everything's fine, but when you come, you're sorry, get it and sign it.
:)))
Here's a mt5 for you, by the way.
>> and what are your impressions?
The NettoTrading script is my point of view on the subject of lots.
On Currenex MinLot = 0.4, LotStep < MinLot...