[ARCHIVE]Any rookie question, so as not to clutter up the forum. Professionals, don't pass it by. Can't go anywhere without you - 5. - page 352

New comment
 
I pointed out to you the error with the brackets.
 
hoz:


So for orders that are active the closing price is logically zero (as it is not closed), but for orders that have already closed the closing price is not zero (the closing price will be the one at the time it was deleted). Logically, this is the closing time?

I understand that the orders are not closed, but deleted, but how else should we implement it?


MODE_TRADES (default) - order is selected among open and pending orders,
MODE_HISTORY - order is selected among closed and deleted orders.
 

He's done everything right, but he's got the brackets all wrong.

2hoz- my advice to you, throw out this algorithm. Why do you need to drag a bunch of pending orders around the chart?

A gridder works fine with just a couple of pendants:

1) you initially place a pair of stop orders.

2) when one of them triggers, right after it (at the required distance) you expose another one. The opposite one is pulled closer to the price at the required distance.

That's all. Thus, you always have only 2 pending orders and do not have troubles with recalculations.

 
Guys, help me out with some advice.https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/142582/page351
 
FAQ:
I pointed out the mistake with the brackets.


Yes, I've already reworked the whole thing, I also had a bug with nulling of extreme price variables at the beginning of function (i.e. before it was 2 and now it's 4). All works, Thank you.

FAQ:

He's done everything right, but he's got the brackets all wrong.

2hoz- my advice to you, throw out this algorithm. Why do you need to drag a bunch of pending orders around the chart?

A gridder works fine with just a couple of pendants:

1) you initially place a pair of stop orders.

2) when one of them triggers, right after it (at the required distance) you expose another one. The opposite one is pulled closer to the price at the required distance.

That's all. Thus, you always have only 2 pending orders and have no troubles with recalculations.


We can do it that way, but as I see it, if the step between pending orders is small, the pending orders may not have enough time to be set. Do you disagree with me? After all, if a pending order is set, it will be triggered. And, if the step is small, it must be set, which, again, leads to the possibility of slippage because the order is not always close to where it is needed.

Besides, I do not place the whole grid all the time. In fact, only one extreme order is deleted and 2 orders are set (one goes short and the other goes long). Thus it turns out that with the same equal conditions it will be good, because even with a strong move you can grab the whole move.

 

Please help to solve the problem with the shift value limit in iHigh(Symbol(),timeframe,shift), which is limited to the number 1000.

iTime(Symbol(),timeframe,1001) gives 1970.01.01 00:00
 
hoz:


I have already changed everything, there was a problem with nulling variables of extreme prices at the beginning of function (i.e. before it was 2 and now it is 4). It all worked, thank you.


We can do it this way, but as I understand it, if the step between pauses is small, the pauses may not have enough time to be set. Don't you agree with me? After all, if a pending order is set, it will be triggered. And, if the step is small, it must be set, which, again, leads to the possibility of slippage because the order is not always close to where it is needed.

Besides, I do not place the whole grid all the time. In fact, only one outermost order is deleted and 2 orders are placed (one goes short and the other goes long). Thus it comes out that with the same equal conditions it will be good, because even with a strong move you can grab the whole move.


1) Do you believe it ? You believe it?? Yes, on a good move on the real, the broker will shift half of the orders by price and open all together and even beyond the takeprofit, and will immediately close at the stop and the rest may not open at all. And he will be right.

2) I haven't seen such a good move yet, that the EA hasn't managed to place pending orders.

But I've seen a wagonload of complaints against the broker in this situation. I have never seen such a good move without a pending one.

 
Fox_RM:
Guys, help me out with some advice.https://www.mql5.com/ru/forum/142582/page351


I think there is a problem here.

 for (i=0; i<=colbr; i++)
{VLUP += MathAbs(iVolume(NULL,0, shift+i));}
}


    
   Comment("Vol_",VLUP,prlw_e,prhgh_e); 
  for(i=0; i<limit; i++)
   {     
SetText("Awesome_super_volumes"+Close[i], DoubleToStr(VLUP,0), tmlw, AO_dn, Black);     
 }
        
When you open the limit chart you are equal to the number of bars, you first count the VLUP amount and then you just put it in all the points by shambles. It will probably count correctly afterwards.
 
Serg16:

Please help me solve the problem with the shift limit in iHigh(Symbol(),timeframe,shift), which is limited to the number 1000.

iTime(Symbol(),timeframe,1001) gives 1970.01.01 00:00

Open Service->Settings->Graphs. See how many bars you have allowed for the chart. I have it working with 2000 and 3000.
 
For the second time in a month, all invoices from the navigator disappear in the terminal, I have to restore them from the terminal's mylebox, and last time the mylebox was empty ...., what is this nonsense, has anyone gone through it?
1...345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359...432
New comment
Reason: