Is it possible to implement a RELIABLE accounting of the aggregate position structure in MT5? - page 21
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 keep talking about it, but I can't understand why? And how does it differ from MT4?
Apparently, in MT4 the stops are set for each position and order.
But in 5, in order to realise a mathematical lock we should place pending orders as stops,
because stops of early trades are "lost" ...
Stops: i.e. s-l and / or t-p
SZZ: I could be wrong
because I'm not quite up to speed on this accounting stuff yet...
Apparently, in Mt4, stops were set for each position and order independently.
And in 5, in order to implement a mathematical lock, for example, it is necessary to place pauses as stops,
because stops of early trades are "lost" ...
Stops: you mean s-l and / or t-p
I got that, why can't you delete it? You set two pending orders, remember their tickets, a simple block monitors their availability, when one triggers, the second is deleted, in short everything is as in MT4....
I got it, why can't I delete it? You put two pending orders, remember their tickets, a simple block monitors their availability, when one triggers, the second is deleted, in short, everything is like in MT4....
Because you have to delete them reliably, as the actual counting is not glitchy "all of a sudden",
and in relation to what, or rather which ticker to delete this ticker...
Anyway, it's like this...
And that's not even mentioning the fact that the comp must be online. >> all the time. >> For clarity.
I got it, why can't I delete it? You put two pending orders, remember their tickets, a simple block monitors their availability, when one triggers, the second is deleted, in short everything is like in MT4....
I mean, when offline one of the pending orders will trigger, the second one will be left hanging.
It means that when offline triggered one pending order, the second one will stay there.
This is natural. But I also meant the case when the connection with the trading server is perfect. If the MT5 is a market terminal, then limit orders will be able to be ideally placed in the depths chart and stop orders will be executed by the MetaTrader5 Execution server itself as a market order. I am describing the situation with a perfect connection to the trade server:
- A Stop order is set as a StopLoss for the currently open position;
- A Limit order (in the window) is set as a TakeProfit for the currently open position;
- important news comes out, the price reaches the Stop-order and immediately (in less than a second) rushes to the Limit-order. (the situation is very common if these orders are close to each other).
What happens in those milliseconds:
- The Execution server will send a Market request to execute the Stop order at the market price;
- The Execution-server receives the price at which the stop-order is executed and sends it to the trader;
- The Execution-server will receive a notification that the Limit order has been executed (the ECN or exchange is responsible for its execution, not the MetaTrader5 Execution-server), and then send the information about it to the trader.
It is interesting, that last and penultimate points can be in different order.
So both orders were executed, the trader was not able to delete the Limit order after the Stop order triggering in case of perfect connection with the trade server.
P.S. This example is also true if the Limit order is not put in the market and is executed by the Execution server as a Market order.
P.P.S. Generally, there are situations when you just cannot delete it in time. This is where the FILL->KILL interrelation of orders described above would help.
Suggested in CodeBase a way of netting trading on MetaTrader4, giving an idea of the purpose and implementation of virtual positions.
Let me remind you of what MQ said on the Alpari website:
MetaTrader 5 uses a completely different architecture for the trading part, which is the exact opposite of the idea of separate position holding. It is technically impossible to combine separate and combined position holding in one system.
As we can see not even a week of discussion, and getch has already proposed an elegant way of netting trading in MT4.
Otherwise it starts with: - "We thought long and hard, consulted with professionals..."
It's just very hard for people to admit that they made a mistake, didn't think it through to the end, and got a quarterly bonus for not deservedly.
Suggested in CodeBase a way of netting trading on MetaTrader4, giving an idea of the purpose and implementation of virtual positions.
I'll even correct myself:
1. Why is it needed?
2. is the simple way of having no more than one pose at any one time not appropriate?
3. what does it prove?
Just a reminder of what MQ said on the Alpari website:
As we can see not even a week into the discussion and getch has already suggested an elegant way of netting trading in MT4.
The same MQ suggested it just as elegantly to netting traders back in 2006:
https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/54564
back in 2006, and this indicator is included in the distribution...
The only reason why nettingsters don't use it, is wrong calculation of average price of common position.
But it's interesting, maybe nobody cares about this problem, beside me, ardent LoCKist...
:))) Either iExposure has failed to do its job, or the nettings are shoulder-flexible and they're sneaking around.