Independent work by two advisers - page 9
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
TCP and UDP port list
Where are the pictures of these ports?)
Where are the photos of these ports?)
Probably not photo-hygienic, no photos for some reason
Probably not photo hygienic, for some reason no photos
How can he tell them apart?
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and strategy testing
Independent work of two EAs
Zvezdochet, 2018.09.16 13:59
If we switch it off and wait an hour, we can put it back on the same PORT . But the question is not about that, but about WHAT I mean by the word PORT.How can he tell them apart?
Well, until he himself has a little understanding of what is a port and what is a socket (connector). It will be useless, and there is a lot of information on the subject in search engines.
My brain is already glitching. I am asking questions to broaden my horizons . I have not understood why I have not solved this problem. It is better to continue the topic of double sessions - it is much more interesting!
If you don't go on about the double session, i.e. you're sure that's not the case, then you need a code. Without the code you can think of many different reasons.
If there are such double trades in the tester, then of course it is all about the Expert Advisor and it is a real mess with this EA.
What happens if I say who it is? Will I be compensated for moral damages? Would they stop charging me?
Why would you be compensated for something, or not charged a commission?
I want to talk to the developer to specifically point out what "glitch" is in the tester such that two orders are opened at once instead of one. This is a very dangerous bug in the terminal - and you need to understand why it occurred. As I understand it, you are unable to explain why it happens. It is normal - you are the customer. That is why I would like to talk specifically to the contractor. The claim that "there's a glitch in the terminal" is a very serious claim that needs to be considered by everyone.
Your only bonus in this case is fixing this bug in the tester, because if it's a real bug, it may occur in your other projects as well. That's why I want to find out exactly what the glitch in the tester is. (if there is one, of course).
But judging by your strange behaviour, I can conclude that you are clearly lying about something somewhere. It started with misrepresenting the words of the performer, and now, continues in your further posts. Accordingly, I don't know what to think anymore... Either that it was the doer who screwed you, or that you're the blabbermouth.
If you don't go on about the double session, i.e. you're sure that's not the case, then you need a code. Without the code you can think of many different reasons.
If there are such double trades in the tester, then of course it's all about the EA and then it's a scarecrow with this EA.
I'm getting more and more inclined to think that Zvezdochet is outright lying, and now when he is asked to provide specific facts - he understands that he will have to show those lies which he's mixed up in his posts. So, it seems that we will not see neither the name of executor, who "found glitch in tester", nor codes, where there were problems.
Well, until he himself has a little understanding of what is a port and what is a socket (connector). It will be of no use, and there is plenty of information on the subject in the search engines.
Yes, I am more and more inclined to the opinion that Zvezdochet lied out loud here, and now, when he is asked to present specific facts - realized that he will have to show the lies, which he densely mixed in his posts. So, it seems, neither the name of the executor, who "found a glitch in the tester", nor the codes, where there were problems - we will not see.
Yes, I am more and more inclined to the opinion that Zvezdochet lied out loud here, and now, when he is asked to present specific facts - realized that he will have to show the lies, which he densely mixed in his posts. So, it seems that we will not see neither the name of executor, who "found glitch in tester", nor codes, where there were problems.
If you don't go on about the double session, i.e. you're sure that's not the case, then you need the code. Without the code you can make up many different reasons............................................. And where do I get it if I have solid layouts ???