Limits/stakes at current price in the Terminal (not in the Tester) - page 2

[Heroix]

fxsaber:

You must have written on some other topic. In this case the problem is technical - there is no acceptance.

If MQ did not make such an acceptance in the Exchange + Netting mode, then the MOEX community in the form of the haters would have a real reason to sling mud at MT5. MQ did the acceptance (including the Tester) and everything is fine there.

The topic substantially hurts Tester, but its specifically omitted because you need a solution for real accounts first and foremost.

Yes, I wrote on a more global topic. And it's one you'll encounter once they tweak (if they tweak) MT5 technically. That's the next level.

At one time, I left the MT platform, including for the reason you mentioned in your sub. But, no matter how you flounder - limiters (sent nicely, via API) will hang and rejack at LP, until the price moves ... usually against you. Maybe I ran into personal control, or maybe that's how the whole system works. That TS was put away in a drawer after all.

But yes, it is possible to comb the MT5. What else is there to discuss except to express my agreement. )

[fxsaber]

Heroix:

No matter how you flounder, limiters (sent nicely, via API) will hang and re-jack at LP until the price moves... usually against you.

The situation of redirects may have nothing to do with flippers. FOK limiters, for example, can be redirected even on an exchange.

[Roman]

fxsaber:

Please, no offtops. MT5 is a market platform. The discussion here is about a serious TECHNICAL limitation/failure.

There are other problems, but I won't focus on them here.

Limit/failure is in the minds of clients, that's the calculation.
FOK on a limit order, how do you imagine it?
It's simple, you are presented as a limit, but if they overlap, they execute with a market order, that's what FOK is for.
FOK and IOC are additional conditions for market orders, or limit at a worse price, but not a better limit.
And a TR is a priori a better limit. Get into the mechanism of order execution, and it will become clear to you.
This is a problem of the retail industry as a whole, not the app.

[fxsaber]

Roman:

Get into the mechanism of order execution and it will become clear to you.

Please do not litter the thread.

[fxsaber]

Alexey Navoykov:
In MT4 with Instant Execution mode there is no such a problem. And Market Execution in dealing is a priori carte blanche for the dealer to cheat

On Alpari-Demo.

TakeProfit:
2020.05.19 10:37:43.552 '13397486': modification of order #562827752 buy 0.05 XAGUSD at 17.083 sl: 0.000 tp: 0.000 -> sl: 0.000 tp: 17.045 failed [Off quotes]
2020.05.19 10:37:43.279 '13397486': modify order #562827752 buy 0.05 XAGUSD at 17.083 sl: 0.000 tp: 0.000 -> sl: 0.000 tp: 17.045

Limit:
2020.05.19 10:35:06.546 '13397486': order buy limit 0.10 XAGUSD opening at 17.070 sl: 0.000 tp: 0.000 failed [Off quotes]
2020.05.19 10:35:06.253 '13397486': pending order buy limit 0.10 XAGUSD at 17.070 sl: 0.000 tp: 0.000

All in all, nonsense. MT4 is best not discussed here again. But I will write what I did with the code.

// Лимитник по текущей.
Print(OrderSend(_Symbol, OP_BUYLIMIT, 0.1, Ask, 0, 0, 0));

// Тейк позиции на текущую.
if (OrderSelect(0, SELECT_BY_POS))
  Print(OrderModify(OrderTicket(), OrderOpenPrice(), 0, OrderClosePrice(), 0));

[Andrey Dik]

fxsaber:

In the form of a limit. Otherwise it would not redirect, but execute with negative slippage.

But without MT5 acceptance there can be no sending. That's the problem. MT5 does not accept. The limit can glow yellow in the Terminal for minutes. And all that time there will be no acceptance.

There is a solution on the part of aggregator developers so that all MT5 market orders turn inside into limit orders, because MT5 accepts markets at once. This is a kind of a workaround for the MT5 problem.

But it has a significant disadvantage. Suppose we need to modify an existing limit order by setting it at the current price. Then we have two options:

1. Remove the limiter and then put in a market, which the aggregator will make the limiter. But when you remove the limiter, the price may go away and you may not make it in time.
2. Place a market and then remove the limiter. But in this case, when a market is placed, the limiter may also be executed. So, the position volume will double.

The aggregator developers are trying to get around this crazy MT5 limitation, but they have crutches with their own disadvantages. If MQ would accept limiters/teaks on the current tick, everything would be fine.

are there any known trading platforms without this disadvantage? and if you work with FIX protocol?

as for the exchange execution, i doubt that correct execution of limits in the tester is possible, because for this you need to consider the queue of limits in the stack at each level (i don't know if such information is even available for trading platforms), now limits in the tester are executed if they touch the flipper price, and will execute immediately if set at the flipper price - this is incorrect per se.

[fxsaber]

Andrey Dik:

are there known trading platforms without this disadvantage? what if you work with the FIX protocol?

About other platforms is incorrect here. FIX - without problems allows you to work with limiters, including limiters at a price worse than the current one.

As for exchange execution, I doubt that correct execution of limits in the tester is possible, because for this you need to consider the queue of limits in the stack at each level (I don't know if such information is available for trading platforms at all), now limits in the tester are executed if they touch the flipper price, and will execute immediately if set to flipper price - this is not correct per se.

Limits in the tester have been discussed many times. For example, here and here.

[Andrey Dik]

fxsaber:

About other platforms is incorrect here. FIX - allows limiters without problems, including limiters priced worse than the current one.

Limits in the tester have been discussed many times. For example here and here.

why is it incorrect? without a comparison to other platforms there will be no change for the better. normal constructive discussion and comparison will only benefit MT5. maybe we live like the Tumbo Yumbo tribe and don't know how ships sail the big theatre.

if everything works as it should in FIX, why doesn't it work in MT5? - If you want to ask this question to developers, but developers may answer: "We gave you MQL5, write everything you want on it, including FIX connection and if you don't like it, write a tester". - That's about the answer I got recently to my question.

Metakvot themselves sometimes do platform comparisons, there are even sort of articles comparing them.

Searchable comparisons:

https://www.mql5.com/ru/search#!keyword=metatrader%20%D0%B8%20quik&module=mql5_module_articles

In Quicksilver the limits are working as they should, is anyone aware of that?

[fxsaber]

Andrey Dik:

Why is it incorrect? without a comparison with other platforms there will be no change for the better. normal constructive discussion and comparison will only benefit MT5. maybe we live like the Tumbo Yumbo tribe and are not aware of how ships sail the vast expanse of the big theatre.

MT5

Other platform

I tried to record a video on MT5 several times, as I wanted the video to be short - the execution happened in few seconds.

[fxsaber]

fxsaber:

I tried several times to record a video on the MT5, because I wanted the video to be short - the execution happened in a few seconds.

This is what the Limit Execution at the current price looks like when you have to wait a little longer.

When it was executed.

Log.

2020.05.19 12:21:34.917 Trades  '84249': buy limit 0.01 USDHKD at 7.75057
2020.05.19 12:21:34.958 Trades  '84249': accepted buy limit 0.01 USDHKD at 7.75057
2020.05.19 12:21:34.959 Trades  '84249': order #618119 buy limit 0.01 / 0.01 USDHKD at market done in 42.100 ms
2020.05.19 12:23:11.473 Trades  '84249': deal #421616 buy 0.01 USDHKD at 7.75057 done (based on order #618119)

It took almost 100 seconds to execute. It was instantaneous on the other platform.