Our daily loss limit was lying to us — a measurement - page 3

[Mohamed Trading]

Chris K. #:

Hello Mohamed,

i followed the last posts with interest. One thing about the new rule. It refuses any new entry while a position from another EA is open, on any instrument.

On an account like mine that means only one EA can trade at a time. With three or four EAs on the same account, each one would block the others a lot of the time. For a single EA prop account thats fine, but people who run several EAs together would probably just switch it off.

atif's idea of reserving stop distance plus gap allowance for every foreign position would let them run side by side and still keep the worst day inside the cap. Maybe the hard block only for positions without a stop?

Best regards

Chris

Chris,

You are right, and it is the strongest objection anyone has made to

that rule.

The block is blunt for one reason: reserving stop distance plus gap

allowance needs a measured gap factor for that instrument, and for a

foreign position on an instrument the system has never traded there is

none. It cannot size the reservation, so it refuses. Correct where it

cannot measure. Too strict everywhere it can.

Your narrower version is better, but a position with a stop can still

gap past it — a stop says where you meant to exit, not where you would.

So the condition is narrower than either of us wrote: block when either

is missing, a stop on the foreign position or a measured factor for its

instrument. When both exist, reserve and let the EAs run side by side.

And your real point stands either way: a protection that makes a

four-EA account unusable gets switched off, and one that gets switched

off is not a protection.

What I do not have is the cost — how often the current rule blocks on a

multi-EA account, and how much of that the condition above removes.

Measurable on the same record, and I will post it.

Thanks — this changes the rule, not the documentation.