Why valenok2003 is against MT5 - page 9

New comment
 
Mathemat:

Ay-yi-yi, and what kind of pebble do you have in your desktop? Some kind of Sempron?

You're insulting the Sempron. :)
 
Mathemat:

Ay-yi-yi, and what kind of pebble do you have in your desktop? Some kind of Sempron?


I have an Athlon XP 1.8-- it's ten years old. Tried to install mt5 on it, but it didn't work. Trouble! I've had this system unit since I was a kid - it's like part of the family.
 
MetaDriver: You're insulting Sempron. :)

No offence taken. The one on socket A only supported SSE. See Wiki.

 
Again with the locks argument. Well, in the first place there is no loss of spread with lots if you competently close positions with a counter position. Secondly, how is it possible to independently run several EAs with different strategies on one terminal and on one pair in MT-5, I can't imagine. And in MT-4 you can start at least 20 advisors on one pair independently and they will not interfere with each other, as long as the deposit is enough.
 
Mathemat:

It's the same, it's the same. Despite the fact that the quadruple was faster than MQLII, and a C-like language was switched to - instead of Pascal-like. Somewhere there are even codes in MQLII, I think.

That's wrong, the spread costs are the same - in the long run. I've posted pictures, just can't remember where:

It's amazing how much netting clears the mind. First you do something "genius" like arbitrage on one pair (!) and then you look at its netting equivalent and see that it's nothing.

Netting isn't better or worse, it's just a different accounting system. But I did see one significant argument in favour of lots - that is when you have to manage positions from different systems.

Confirmed. No extra spread. The same stuff.
 
VladislavVG:

Okay. That's why I asked again - I got 117, not 86 for a loca.

Now netting:

1. Doing nothing (opening a loc equals no position)

2. 2. 2 SELL 1.3364.

3. Closed 2 SELL 1.3309

4. 1 BUY 1.3309 is opened

5. Closed 1 BUY 1.3316

Total: 2x55 (1.3364-1.3309=55) + 1x7 (1.3316-1.3309=7) = 117

Where is the difference ?

Why 1 buy? The puts would have been one order at a time. Or 2.
 
FION:
Again with the locks argument. Well, in the first place there is no loss of spread with lots if you competently close positions with a counter position. Secondly, how is it possible to independently run several EAs with different strategies on one terminal and on one pair in MT-5, I can't imagine. And in MT-4 you can start at least 20 advisors on one pair independently and they will not interfere with each other, as long as the deposit is enough.
And what should we do in such a situation: a trader wants to trade on the short term and on the long term? There are own stops and take-ins everywhere. I do not understand if you are for locks or not ))
 
220Volt:
What about in this situation: does a person want to put part of his money into the short term and part into the long term? Every part has its own stops and take-ins.
Well, then put a different order to close a part of the position for each part. What is the difficulty again?
 
220Volt:
What about in this situation: does a person want to put part of his money into the short term and part into the long term? Everywhere has its own stops and takeaways.
On 4, no problem, but on 5 you have to write a code the size of a video game to keep track of all this in netting. And there is no flexibility. If you want to add something else, you have to write it again. I hope 4 will live, otherwise it's a shame...
 
alexx_v:
So put a different order on each part to close a part of the position. What's the problem again?
If we are talking about MT5, then we will have two orders SL and TP, one will trigger, one will remain.
12345678910111213141516...25
New comment
Reason: