MT4 doesn't have long to live - page 12
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
Two strategies are equivalent if their equities are equal at any point in time - even if the balances are very different.
The equity of the "tray" system differs from the equity of the netting system only by plus or minus spread (or several spreads if there are several lots for one instrument). And these differences disappear when all positions are closed.
There can be no equivalent lot and netting systems, although, at a moment's notice, equity is close.
A lock is two trades, perhaps from different TS, and they are done according to indiv methods.
When netting, I'm not in the market at all. Don't you get it?
I don't do virtual trading.
I think if so many people immediately have the same thoughts (in favor of quadruple), then it is not just because, it means there is a reason to think so.
It is easy to see that defending 5-th only "cronies" or sharks local mql-business, namely the prof. progers, who hope either to take a penny at the next boom in the mass transition of the crowd on netting.
Or they themselves naively believe that, well, there it is finally, there it is, happiness is buried, you just need to put more effort and dig deeper. OOP is what I've been missing so far.
It's much worse than that. From experience. I ended up in socialism as a very big programmer boss. I used to start my working day by summoning sysadmins and starting to beat them over the head. If I was able to knock out of their heads all their "bright ideas", which they had accumulated during the night, I felt confident that the day would go quietly and I could get down to business. If this was not done in the morning, all these sysadmins would not let you work and, moreover, would get you involved in some kind of fornication.
For all these people, the meaning of life is mind games. Nothing to do with the substance of the case.
This is an interesting discussion.
Let me remind people here - a trading platform exists for traders.
They are the ones who bring profit to the brokers. Not programmers.
I don't care if MQL5 is 20 times more powerful than 4.
I am a trader who learned to code my tasks in MQL4, and it is important for me to have multiple positions, including counter positions.
That's the way I work. Netting is unacceptable to me.
And as long as there are people like me, MT4 will not die.
Thank you for your attention.
Absolutely agree, precisely because many traders will continue to trade on 4, these two platforms will coexist together for a very long time, as DCs will not want to lose clients from 4 even for the period of their training on 5.
They haven't learned yet (or it's difficult to implement yet) how to take filters and interference to a new level, so that mere mortals won't be able to take advantage of some things.
as soon as possible, and tics will turn out that you can do with a little history as in ninzi and everything else (quality and full volume for statistics).
whoever the customers are mostly mt? the same kitchens, or well-masked kitchens. As you can see, the mt is for them and not for us traders. the functionality for the customer and the brokerage is very different. a real broker (not using the mt)) just does not need such features in customer management because the principle of earning from customers is different.
Who cares if they are opened by aliens?
With netting, I am not on the market at all. Don't you get it?
With a symmetrical lock, the result is the same as if you were not in the market: equity and even balance are constant.
Technically, your positions are in the market, yes, but the result is equivalent to simply closing the first position (almost equivalent, since you give the spread to the market some time earlier - but even this imbalance disappears when you unlock the lock). Don't you get it?
I don't do virtual trading.
Lock is in fact virtual trading. But of course it seems to you that you remain the most active participant of the market.
The case is much worse. From experience. I ended up in socialism as a very big programming boss. I started my working day by summoning the sysadmins and starting to beat them over the head. If I was able to knock out of their heads all their "bright ideas", which they had accumulated during the night, I felt confident that the day would go quietly and I could get down to business. If this is not done right in the morning, all these sysadmins will not allow to work and moreover will get involved in some fornication.
The raison d'être for all these people is mind games. Nothing to do with the substance of the matter.
Would you be so kind as to provide lists of software products created under your management, so that everyone can see the proven management experience.
There can be no equivalent lot and netting systems, although, at a moment's notice, equity is close.
A lock is two trades, maybe from different TS, and they are done according to indiv methods.
I am not in the market at all when netting. Don't you get it?
I don't do virtual trading.
Dealing doesn't care what your orders are and what you follow them up with - it only has an aggregate position from you in the market....
You are also not in the market with a lock, or rather, only a netting position is in the market. And the maintenance margin is withheld from the netting position. Your locked positions only exist in your terminal. You are amused by the virtual trading )))): that's what you do when you lock - don't you get it?
ZS Mathemat had time to reply before )))))).
ZZZY Just do not interpret my post as a call for the abolition of Loks: I have such an opportunity - it is possible to use, if the trader understands what he does. No - it is not terrible, because it does not affect profitability of a strategy or a set of strategies. But when a trader begins to argue that the lack of locking capabilities leads to loss of profitable trading, the trader is deceiving here or he/she does not understand why he/she gains profit. And assertions about the statistical advantage of locks are wrong in principle.
Would you be kind enough to list the software products created under your management, so that everyone can see the proven management experience.
Mathemat and VladislavVG, you have both misunderstood Sergei's(hhohholl) main point.
I quote: "lock is two trades, m.b. from different TCs".
You understand that the lock in this case is not an end in itself, but an opportunity to manage positions of several MTS in one account?