Is there a need for a lock in MT5? - page 64
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
By the way, here's the mt5 in your hands.
What are your impressions? Do you feel relaxed or what?
I have got cold to MT5, the language is too complicated, I have more time to master it than I actually have. What is MQ planning to do with his flock attracted by the simplicity and availability of autotrading I can not even imagine. The income of "custom" programmers will increase many times over... Yes, I can't make money on MT5, but I want to "take the short cut").
------
And if we return to our "sheep", who is shouting about what? There is no netting or no netting in the thread title for example, but there is "LOC" for fuck's sake... Where did our conversation start today? With the fact that not-someone showed a beautiful balance graph obtained solely "thanks" to the locks.
And I am ready to join the "non-netting" party at any time, and the main argument in the discussion with MQ should be the fact that the net view is complicated by autotrading, the main asset of the platform, but not by the word "lock".
I'm a bit cold to MT5, the language is complicated and it will take me more time to master it than I have yet. What MQ plans to do with its flock attracted by the simplicity and accessibility of autotrading I can't even imagine. The income of "custom" programmers will increase many times over... But you can't make money on MT5 yet, but you want to "short sell").
I`m not talking about MT5, but about MT5 terminal and usability of nettrading in it!
I have something to entertain nettotrader, eh?
;)
And if we go back to our "sheep", who is shouting about what is the question. There is no netting or non-netting in the title of the topic, for example, but there is "LOC" for fuck's sake... Where did our conversation start today? Because not-someone showed a beautiful balance graph obtained solely "thanks" to the locks.
So? It's a good topic title... and I don't see anything wrong with it.
The topic starter asked a question to the experts in his field... and no more...
And what's with the doubts about the graphics + exclusively thanks to the lokas?
Also quite normal situation for those who have learned this useful tool.
Again, nothing criminal...
So? It's a good topic title... and I don't see anything criminal in it.
The topicstarter asked a question to the experts in his field... and nothing more...
In order to reduce the problem of registering orders of multiple TS, traders, hands, etc. in a netting platform to the problem of missing lots, which in and of themselves do not provide anything - a crime, because without arguments, naked howling, shouting and whining is not the solution. And with arguments about the benefits of locks is a big problem... But set all against even the thought of finding another solution, to convince everyone of their own illiteracy can be easily.
And what about doubts in graphics + solely because of the loks?
It's also quite normal for those who have mastered this useful tool.
I'm not doubting the chart, I'm doubting that it's impossible to obtain the same final result without locks using the same TS.
That's it, I'm fed up) Lock with you.
Угу. Нытье одно. Никто локерам не говорит, что лок - зло. Им объяснить пытаются, что все решаемо без локов и типа не плачьте, все будет хорошо. Не-а, они с упорством зомби заливают все ветки своим нытьем и идиотскими примерами из арифметики для начальных классов.
Им говорят, вот - сделайте учет локов у себя на машине, а торговые сигналы генерируйте уже после него. Нет. Начинают биться в истерике, что это ненадежно и вообще жизнь кончается.
Им говорят, вот - в 5-ке поля в ордере есть, где все это можно хранить. Нет. Начинают ныть, чтоб им метаквоты сами этот учет сделали, да и отложки не так как в 4-ке им становятся резко неприемлимы.
Ну и хрен с вами, говорят вменямые. Пользуйтесь 4-й. Не-е-е-е, отвечают - вы террористы, тупые, набрасываетесь на нас, как на красную тряпку, но вы продолжайте дальше слушать наше нытье про 5-ку.
Вы совсем тупые?
Кто вам говорит, что лок - это плохо??? Просто говорят, что можно и без него.
Кто на вас набрасывается? Да сдались вы со своими тараканами, ей-богу. Любые попытки помочь, объяснить, показать как можно, не делая трепанацию вашего черепа, жить дальше, воспринимаете как гоп-стоп.
Пользуйтесь 4-й, кто мешает??? Сто раз уже сказали: НИКТО 4-ку закрывать не собирается. Они будут сосуществовать.
Задолбали своими соплями.
Most arguments are pointless - you say the same thing but in different words - in most get away from the point!
The argument about the profitability of locs is meaningless because locs can in principle be programmed without a loc (even if the response and costs - of course there will be nuances, and the difference is in them). - in this context, the loss is like a "program without the program" (we open the lot, and when it reaches the TP of the first "as if closed" trade, we open the same one, but in reverse) - but with the loss we win on costs - I think the loss is a bit illogical in a big difference between economy and possible loss, but for a small difference and volatility ...
The argument about the morality of oppositely-directed trades is also meaningless - if their opening prices are different (of course open lots immediately after the deal and at the same price - there's already a question) I often sell and buy the same product from one seller and it's a matter of mutual benefit.
The plus of no-locs is that they reduce the number of orders - but that too at first glance!
I think the averaging of one-way orders - a positive moment and lots should be left - we should give an opportunity to refuse to set them off in the menu (or at least even at the broker's choice)! MT4 - this will be outdated so lots are not quite right here!
If you look at the root, lots still leave more freedom and less cost.
And the possibility of losing lots for some to increase - for others to reduce (roughly speaking:
For beginners - increase
For "average" - decrease
for experienced traders - they do not influence them, but they give more freedom, less expenses and more temptation - for no one can get rid of it completely (at least those who deal in Forex).
I think they have in mind to fight "medium" traders and small brokerage companies - but the calculation is wrong because their number is growing.
I think we should put pressure on developers to leave lots at least in some version - this is profitable for them too - more brokers will refuse from MT4.
Кривую баланса ф топку, кривая эквити - всему голова. Баланс может расти в гору хоть до самого маржинкола. Давайте Вашего советника и я совершенно безвозмездно, читайте даром, переделаю его для торговли без локов. Прям сейчас и займусь. Не желаете?
Вся проблема в том, что любители локов постоянно ссылаются на одни им известные приемы извлечения прибыли из локов, вместо расчетов показывают какие-то кривые, отчеты и прочую ересь, считают что никто кроме них самих, уникально умных, не смог увидеть где грааль зарыт. Факты, давайте факты. Копий поналомано более чем. Пора переводить базар в предметное русло дисскусии.
Логика рыночных движений это одно, вот подсчет прибылей и убытков в торговле, анализ сделок - это чистая математика.
What's there to talk about - it will only be chit-chat. Show me your Expert Advisor that makes profit without a loc?!
I am going to show you: I will open an account today and run the Expert Advisor on a real account. In time, after testing all pairs, I will put the EA on other pairs and post the account data here, if I wish. Plus my EA will participate in the contest in broco under the username religare777 (see here http://contests.brocompany.com/cyber-trade/participants/) starting from February 8 and ending on March 1.
You have a loc-free profitable EA - why don't you try to beat mine? It will be concrete and without extra words.
Эквити в MT4 неправильно считается. Да и прибыль - тоже.
Isn't it supposed to be fixed in the next build ?