Is there a need for a lock in MT5? - page 69
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
It's being finalised.
Note, not me)
I don't see how it can be modified to not have locks.
Certainly, in some cases, it's much easier to implement something using locos. The lack of locks is in any case a limitation for the coder. For example, ten Expert Advisors work on one symbol. In order to avoid locks, you should somehow combine these ten Expert Advisors into one... How difficult it would be to implement. I myself do not like "persecution" of Loki, but I do not understand those who foaming at the mouth and saying that by banning Loki they are taking away their earnings ...
Z.U. Oh, and forgot to add: for the near future, my suggestion of redesigning EAs is removed, I'll be very busy. Well, except, like I promised , if he'll do it of course)
It's understandable
They' re hiding their prints.
I think you'll regret volunteering.)
It's understandable
They're hiding their prints.
I think you'll regret volunteering.)
You think they're redoing it for me? Why? )
Это понятно
граальные отпечатки прячут
Думаю Вы пожалеете что вызвались )
Who promised a vaccination?
They're getting their asses ready.
Who needs to open opposite spot and CFD
and in fact graals don't need any locs staphylococcus
Замечу, не я)
Безусловно, в некоторых случаях что-то гораздо проще реализовать используя локи. Отсутствме локов ведь как ни крути это ограничение для кодера. Например десять советников работают на одном инструменте, что бы избежать локов, надо как-то объеденить эти десять советников в один... Тихий ужос как сложно это будет реализовать. Мне самому тоже ненравятся "гонения" на локи, но я совсем не понимаю тех, кто с пеной у рта доказывает, что запрещая локи у них отнимают заработок...
З.Ы. Да, и забыл добавить: на ближайшее время мое предложение о переделки советников снимается, буду сильно занят. Ну кроме, вроде обещался, religare, если он надумает конечно)
Of course, everything is according to plan. Only you haven't answered my question:
How will you be able to break my EA if it has multiple blocks. Example:
30 minutes.
opens sell 0.1
on the next bar
opens buy 0.1
etc. on every bar. Each open order is accompanied by its opposite double pending order at a distance.
If according to your theory you can do without a lock, then before the opening of the 1st order of the 2nd block you will have to close the 1st order of the 1st block?
I can imagine it is possible to close an order inside a block before opening a double opposite one, but how can you do it if there are multiple blocks?
If according to your theory you can do without a lock, then before you open the 1st order of the 2nd block you will have to close the 1st order of the 1st block?
You need to look at the EA, but most likely this is the case, there is no point in holding completely overlapped orders, Buy 10 lots and Sell 10 lots, moving 100 pips in either direction, how much profit would you get? That's right 0, minus costs. A little tricky with different stop levels, but it's solvable....
And the challenge is that the overlap is not outside the block, but inside the block. The deferrals overlap the first orders
If you close the 1st order of a block, the pending order will also close, i.e. the block will disappear. You will not be able to achieve the same profitability curve as the EA has in this way.
What and how can be implemented without loss of profitability I can only say after seeing the EA. If completely overlapped orders do not give profit, it means that profit appears only when there is a "locking" skew and it must be opened. If there is no other variant, trades of these blocks may be executed virtually.