[Archive] Learn how to make money villagers! - page 635
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've heard of it. I've heard of triangles, too.
I'm talking about a simpler option: matching pairs with the same tendencies.
But that's a fantasy...
And what about the abolition of locks: no one runs there even now.
And the Fourth, they have methods of influence on traders. Why else would they be oppressed.
So let's live and let's see.
In other words, in mt5, the developers have deprived traders of the opportunity to work simultaneously on two identical strategies, one of which works for buying and the other for selling, motivated by loks?
If I am wrong, let more knowledgeable people correct me.
Theoretically, they were not deprived.
After all, sometimes in such a scheme the opposite actions do not coincide.
Practically, yes.
Locke is unambiguously cancelled.
That leaves lock options on different pairs.
Hedge, arbitrage... This is a different strategy.
The point is that averaging is not appropriate. We should use the "stretching", i.e. if we go in minus/plus, we should open an order that is not of the same strength, but even stronger, i.e. it is the size of the lot in relation to the previous one. This simple mathematics allows us to find the rest - the degree of increase in the lot size, the order opening step, etc. - based on the deposit size and the maximum number of orders that we will use in our work, plus statistics (maximum price minus minimum price for the period). Yes, lots will appear at reversals, but they will normally disappear if the entry-exit algorithm is constructed correctly, i.e. we take the maximum possible profit and the minimum loss, although the latter will also close in the plus.
... if you open both long and short on the same chart - it's already a lock...
The thing is that in its basic version ILAN trades either in buy or in sell - until it reaches profit (including the bunch of averaging orders, if there is one - that is when the price moves in the opposite direction of the first (starting) order), i.e. that is why the author of the topic (branch) suggested to use two differently directed ILANs in one symbol and united them into one code for that, naturally, providing them with different order mages for their positions in the market, i.e. while one order is averaging (the other one is a bunch of orders), the other one is losing its profit and the other one is losing its initial movement.So while one is averaging (say, trading only long, when instrument's price moves downwards, wrapping up a bunch of buy orders expecting a pullback upwards), the other (with smaller (certainly starting or close) volumes is cutting the cash (going short, with the same instrument price moving down) - that's all - it makes the testing convenient and everything else... :-)
Hedge, arbitrage... That's a completely different strategy.
The point here is that averaging is definitely not an option. We have to do "stretching", i.e. if we go in minus/plus, we have to open an order that is not of the same strength, but even bigger, i.e. it is the size of the lot in relation to the previous one. This simple mathematics allows us to find the rest - the degree of increase in the lot size, the order opening step, etc. - based on the deposit size and the maximum number of orders that we will use in our work, plus statistics (maximum price minus minimum price for the period). Yes, lots will appear at reversals, but they will normally disappear if the entry-exit algorithm is constructed correctly, i.e. we take the maximum possible profit and the minimum loss, although the latter will also close in the plus.
I think I've seen something like that in your pictures.
Could I be wrong?
I think I've seen something like that in your pictures.
Could I be wrong?
The thing is that in its basic version ILAN trades either in buy or in sell - until it reaches profit (including the bunch of averaging orders, if there is one - that is when the price moves in the opposite direction of the first (starting) order), i.e. that is why the author of the topic (branch) suggested to use two differently directed ILANs in one symbol and united them into one code for that, naturally, providing them with different order mages for their positions in the market, i.e. while one order is averaging (the other one is a bunch of orders), the other one is losing its profit and the other one is losing its initial movement.So while one is averaging (say, trading only long, when instrument's price moves downwards, wrapping up a bunch of buy orders expecting a pullback upwards), the other (with smaller (certainly starting or close) volumes is cutting the cash (going short, with the same instrument price moving down) - that's all - it makes the testing convenient and everything else... :-)
There is no need to apologize, you have not done anything wrong. Lock is when an opposing position is purposefully placed for a position. And in Ilan, in the variant where there are positions of different directions, it simply combines two identical strategies, one of which works for buying and the other for selling. And if, for example, this EA opens a Sell position, there must not necessarily be a Buy position and vice versa at the same time. This is not the case with locking; if there is a locking position, there must be a basic oppositely directed position. IMHO. If I'm wrong, let more knowledgeable people correct me.
But you allow both short and long positions to be opened simultaneously in the Expert Advisor's logic - that's the only reason. Isn't the presence of positions opened simultaneously (even if with different lots in total) in different directions called locking? So the locking somehow occurs in the Expert Advisor's logic?
Although I'm going to ask stupid questions, I'd better look for myself, what exactly the EA is doing to which so many pages were devoted. If people see the point, they need to understand it...
1. I thank you for your clarification. But the terminal (MT5) will not understand what macro and what is there, it will just open a joint position (I have not yet tested MT5), it turns out that the so-called new ILAN lives with MT4, because I do not know any serious platform that allows the simultaneous opening and in the buy and sell on the same instument.
2. how to circumvent this ban by opening two different accounts with two different brokers (quotes do not match and there is a delay in order execution)? I wonder why I ask, I just started the idea, came Reshetov (I do not know why, but I appreciate his opinion) killed the initiative in the bud, so now I think, is it worthwhile at all, if the Fourth is not long ...
1. Of course + See my (last post) on the previous page.
2. "Getting around this ban will have to open two different accounts with..." the same broker.
Initially (for quadruple) it was like that - see branch in the beginning - the same owls ran on the same trading account on the same instrument of the same broker - on two screens of traded instrument - only one owl trades - only long, another on the same instrument, but in the next window of the same client terminal - allow to trade short ONLY and all - mags different - instrument one.
But you allow both short and long positions to be opened simultaneously in the Expert Advisor's logic - that's the only reason. Isn't the presence of positions opened simultaneously (even if with different lots in total) in different directions called locking? So the locking is included in the Expert Advisor's logic in one way or another?