Is it possible to implement a RELIABLE accounting of the aggregate position structure in MT5? - page 7
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
You can do a lot of things, but "only one TP and one SL....". And TP and SL are good in that they are able to work without internet, without EA, and without all the library functions. Now, for example, we cannot manually set two or even one-directional pending orders with different TP levels. No, lots by lots, but this net position for the terminal is a step back. Of course, DC are simpler since they work with net profit anyway, but it's an obstacle for a trader.
I agree. If not the execution of custom EAs on a trade server, the implementation of an elementary language of setting/cancelling linked orders and storing these firmware on a server would be a good solution. Then we would not need to enter buy stop limit orders, all this could be done by ourselves as well as many other things which must be executed on the trade server.
I think this is where the example is farfetched. You make a button on the display, call it something like "close everything", which closes everything, with the necessary marking.
The example is far-fetched, of course, but it conveys the idea. It is impossible to list all the situations that arise.
TP and SL levels of orders would have been possible with the existence of OCO-orders which are present in almost every platform. However, in MT5 they are not available either.
Perhaps the developers will argue why they rejected virtual positions (and OCO orders) on the trade server, as it is already implemented in some platforms. And tell us about their vision for solving this problem.
I agree. A step forward would be if not the execution of custom EAs on the trade server, then at least the introduction of an elementary language for placing/cancelling linked orders and storing these firmware on the server. In this case we would not need to enter buy stop limit orders, we would be able to do all this by ourselves as well as many other things which should be done on the trade server.
The firmware on the trade server is a huge step forward. To stay in place is virtual positions on the trade server (as it is now on MT4). Unfortunately, there is none of that. The reasons why it is necessary to wiggle through all sorts of places, when previously it was not necessary to do so, are not clear.
Micro-programs on a trade server are a huge step forward. Staying put is virtual positions on the trade server (as it is now on MT4). Unfortunately, there is none of that. The reasons why you have to wiggle through all sorts of places, when you didn't have to do it before, are not clear.
Because most stockbrokers work with clients using similar logic. Although this logic is inconvenient for mechanical trading. After all, the developers have in mind to make MT5 a stock exchange software. Explain then brokers why it's not the way they used to :)
because most stockbrokers work with clients using similar logic. Although this logic is inconvenient for mechanical trading. After all, the developers have a plan for MT5 to become a stock exchange software. Explain then brokers why it's not like they used to :)
For the brokers everything remains as it was before - netposition. The broker does not even have to know about the virtual positions.
For brokers, it is the same as before - a net position. The broker does not even have to know about the virtual positions.
He has to. He works with clients and responds to their complaints.
For brokers, it is the same as before - a net position. The broker does not even have to know about the virtual positions.
How come? If you keep the virtual positions in your place - then nobody knows about them. And if you have such a service on the server - then the broker just knows about them. And it seems to be under NFA. Is not it so?
You have little idea of the problem. If someone comes up with at least the idea of HOPEFUL consideration of aggregate position structure, then the branch will die, so I too have a primitive narrow-minded mindset. If not, then it's a serious problem that will need to be solved by the developers already.
Do away with stops and replace them with pending orders. Closing the aggregate position will not affect them. I.e. instead of active orders we will need to count pending orders (or pairs of pending orders).
Do away with stops and replace them with pauses. Closing an aggregate position will not affect them. In other words, instead of active orders we will need to count pending orders (or pairs of pending orders).
Read the thread a bit further, then perhaps the problem will become clearer.
How is it? If you store the virtual positions on your own - then no one really knows about them. But if the server has such a service - the broker just knows about them. And it seems to be covered by NFA. Isn't it so?
Not subject to NFA as there is a history of trading transactions for NFA and any audit. It is simply that each transaction is linked to a virtual position. And whether or not that linkage is used is solely the trader's problem, not the broker's.
I wrotehere how Dukascopy has implemented it.