NEW MT5 Seriously Stuffed For Traders Platform

1. If you have an ea that trades one position at a time you are not affected.

You are affected if you manually trade as well. In addition most EAs don't take enough trades (so mechanical) to make them usuable by themselves unless you have a huge account to begin with. Hence traders trade along side sometimes opposite to.

Most EAs do not trade only one trade at a time.


2. if you have multiple ea that counter trade each other then you could be screwed, but what if the broker allows you to open a sub account for your counter trading....possibility?

Sub accounts within the one platform might not work. I am under the impression that it is now the platform that will be doing part of the prevention process.

3. if you are using ea's completely automated then going to oanda or saxo or others will not do you any good.

Yes you are right. My point was more along the lines that the EA is effectively useless, however GFT, dukascopy and a few other big wigs do have programming available too.

4. Best is to have multiple accounts with different brokers or sub accts with the same broker if they allow you to pursue your strategies effectively.

Yes true but increases difficulty of management, and reduces ability to leverage with safety. I have a finite cash supply at the moment. Hence still BAD for the trader with EAs but maybe better than the option.


If metaquotes were thinking of the trader though, they wouldn't be limiting functionality, the would be increasing it.

My questions to metaquotes might be:
What trading tactics will you eliminate next time, to try and make your customer (the broker) more profitable?

From this, retail forex is telling us to enter more trades in a given time period. This, when they also say 'no scalping'. It's an information squeeze: Big money can (, if broker, get an extra trade's spread or, if trader,) afford to buy the really good indicators, while the small-potatoes trader either doesn't realize it and loses more or does and leaves more.

Well I dunno if its true or not but a senior very well respected member here on ff (he has a big thread here at ff and lots of students) told me metaquotes metatrader is popular with brokers simply because they have add ons available to their bonafide customers by which they can manipulate aka cheat the end user (trader) out of his hard earned money.

This is why its so popular among brokers.

Even those who can trade will have to fight an uphill battle if they go with metatrader. He was absolutely convinced of this.

Anyway when I told this member that what he said sounded rather bizare to me he told me try this simple test. Call up metaquotes pretending to be a broker wanting to buy metatrader from them and wanting to know what the advantages are. He says if metaquotes thinks you're a legitimate prospective sizeable customer they'll tell you about how broker friendly metatrader is and the discount you'll get if you want to purchase the naughty add ons and how much it benefits the broker

Who knows?

Note that many broker provide MT4 and MT3 so there is a very high chance that most broker will not migrate in a mandatory fashin to MT5.

Dont worry, you will still be able to trade on MT4

Yes I hope so... Especially considering a number of brokers have turned the MT4 platform into an ECN data fed platform, they won't wanna change too quickly.

Metatrader 5 will likely be in Beta version at most brokers before full integration. These things don't happen overnight, without headaches of course..

Aquaart, I sense your frustration.

There may be a simple workaround to your problem , but - in terms of any added inconvenience - much would depend on (1) exactly when you decide to both enter, and exit, your offestting short position, and (2) what types/combos of pending orders MT5 allows.

-- At the time you decide to enter your short, you could instead place a TP on your long, at the same price level.

-- At the time you decide to close your short, you could instead place a buy-limit order, at the same price level (that's if MT5 allows this).

That way you'd capture the same pips, with both the same margin usage, and same exposure to risk. Tunera explains the logic in post #11. And you'd be at your PC making trade decisions at exactly the same times as you would if you were nedging.

However, supposing you wanted to be long initially, then net short, then long again........ you'd need to not only close your initial long, but open a short also. Then, in addition to setting a TP to close your short, you'd need to create the buy-limit order (at the same price level) while your short was still open...... if MT5 doesn't allow this, then I see your problem. You'd need to be at your computer to first close the short, and then immediately (re-)open the long position 'manually'.

Here is a (fairly up-to-date, hopefully) list of 100 candidate MT4 brokers, should you feel the need to migrate once again.

Thanks for the link to the many MT4 brokers...

Thank you for your suggestions, but in terms of overcoming:
ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIREMENT.
ADDITIONAL RISK EXPOSURE TO A GREATER LOSS.
your appreciated suggestions miss out on one or the other of the two points that I made earlier. To truly make a similar number of pips whilst not being at your trading terminal, you would need a pending BUY STOP and a pending BUY LIMIT order.


Where the short misses the Buy Limit Scenario.
Missing the BUY Limit is the reason you need the pending BUY STOP.

Ok I have a t/p (on the original BUY order) at the place where I would want to short (can't have two orders at the one time).
Like with all good trading I must give the short a little negative room to move.

However a BUY Limit is then placed where I would want the short to take its profit and re-enter my long term trade.
However if the short does not work and therefore misses the BUY Limit... I would need a BUY Stop order placed at the Stop loss of the short.

However the * shows how many pips would be lost due to the need to give your short some breathing room to go its direction) because you can not have both a BUY trade and Sell trade occurring at the same time.

Hence in MetaSTEALERTrader 5 my short loses thoses pips as per normal in any trading. But also my longer term trending trade also loses those pips because unlike MT4I would have still be in the long term BUY trade.

The alternative is to self manage and sit in front of my computer all day.


However worse still...
Where the short hits the BUY Limit Scenario

If the quotes were to make it down to the BUY Limit, then my pending BUY Stop has the potential to expose me to too much risk for the original long term trade that I wanted. WHY? Because although they have reduced their trading functionality for many traders, MetaSTEALERTrader 5 has not tried to compensate this with OCO orders capability. In other words I would be required to be there to cancel the pending BUY STOP order.

MetaSTEALERTrader 5 is NOT an upgrade for the trader, it is downgrade for profitability.
Unless you need market depth and additional timeframes in your trading platform.

After working through a number of scenarios, I believe you're correct. If I understand correctly, you're saying that you effectively need a SL/TP for the short position in the nedge, to cover every possible future price movement. I tried setting up different combos of long orders (buy limits and buy stops, with different TPs and SLs), attempting to replicate this nedge, but the problem is that it's impossible to predict in advance how price will move, and therefore which of these orders will get triggered, and in which sequence. And then, as you say, you need some way of canceling the orders that you no longer require. Otherwise there is the possibility of 2 long orders being open simultaneously (which no longer replicates the nedge).

An additional consideration is that the more orders that get opened and closed, the more times you pay the spread.

I still believe that any nedge can be replicated, by simply opening and closing orders to adjust the net position, but (as you point out) that would mean continuous monitoring of the positions manually. Automating this process, by using an EA, is the only possible 'set and forget' solution.

I second that. I'm ashamed that you're an American too.

mmmhh.... Martingale couldn't be used again in this kind of Metatrader.

And all my position would be averaged. I don't know... I don't too like this metatrader for manual trading.

I don't know if I can benefit more with EA.

How about anyone? Like to trade with this new platform?

Wrong.

Mmhh.. can you please explain to me why it's wrong? Isn't martingale you keep doubling your bet if you lose the position? Any information appreciated.

Thanks.

Search for the posts of Hanover, he has gone to great lengths to explain to the mathematical equivalence of the two different order styles. He explains things far better than I ever could.
The NFA hedging ban thread is a good place to start.

@ Craig
Have a read of Hanover's previous post within this thread, he himself after I go through two real trading scenarios (including stop losses and spread paying into account) actually says that it can not be matched with this new single position trading that MetaSTEALERTrader 5, have now implemented.
Here is the link to my post http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...6&postcount=28
Here is the link to Hanover's fair response http://www.forexfactory.com/showpost...0&postcount=29



@ Sanzaru

In the traditional martingale sense, it can NOT be traded, in MetaSTEALERTrader 5.
With a simple hedge pips can be matched in trend trading. However, good hedgers (not nedgers) actually make a real lot of money. Because what is actually classed as hedging isn't really hedging but TREND trading (same pips as the trend trader) AND COUNTER trend (additional pips found in the "nedge") trading at the same time.
Hence excellent hedge traders (which are very few), are outrageously profitable, far more profitable than a trend trader.

This I believe is the real reason for the one position at a time in MetaSTEALERTrader 5.

Because there is no legal reason in countries other than USA for this to be implemented.

I would suspect (but definitely don't know) that the NFA anti-hedging laws were brought in under the disguise of protecting the new trader, when really they were initiated by the big retail brokers to protect them from traders who know how to use nedging well.

Cause think about it: No Stop Losses equals no recognised loss. So If you can keep on going indefinitely (with lots of small trades), it means large drawdown (super large risk) but continual profit (super profit).

If they were trying to protect the trader, they would have put limitations on charges made by brokerages or banks to hold positions over night. That way a brokerage / bank can not be charging negative amounts for positions held in opposite directions.

AND / OR

They would have put a registration need on traders to demonstrate that they had been trading for X number of years, and understood the high risk in not managing hedged trading properly.

Make no mistake this anti-hedging MetaSTEALERTrader 5 platform is not for the protection of the customer, nor is it for legal requirements of USA laws. It is to benefit the broker, otherwise brokers would not be wanting to buy it. The broker is MetaQuotes' customer not ours.

Thank you for the explanation Aquaart.

I just released what this one position trading does.

For traders with counter trend trading strategies or heding strategies.

1. It overcomes the anti-hedging laws, by combining trades into one position.
2. Raises the costs of "hedge styled" (via additional spreads).
3. But takes away from the continual profitability of most hedging strategies as t/p will be less likely to be realised (because it will often be forced to be recognised early.

Hence the new anti-hedging laws have actually done stuff all for the new trader. Because many newbie hedgers will think they will still be able to do their trading with this system.

Hence since this system substantially reduces the benefits (possible within excellent nedging), the newbie trader ('nedger') who gets some of that benefit will lose money even quicker (because now they will be recognising continual losses as well.

Just to clarify.......

I'm not supporting any argument for or against MT5. In fact, I haven't even seen it yet. I was merely trying to find a solution to Aquaart's problem.

My comment is not restricted to nedging. Any batch of overlapping pending orders can't necessarily be replicated by a different batch, simply because there's no way of knowing which order(s) in the original batch will be triggered first. That's not a limitation of the underlying mathematical principles (any scenario at any given point is ultimately nothing more than a net position, and can be replicated by a single order), it's a limitation of the trading platform's inability to link orders on an "IF (this order is triggered)....THEN (create these new orders/cancel these existing orders)......" basis. An MT4 (and no doubt MT5) EA removes all such limitations. In fact, the full-fledged programming laguage offers unlimited flexibility, much moreso than a platform that merely allows OCO.

Apart from the fact that nedging allows the convenience of set-and-forget order placement, and that's assuming that one prefers to trade in that particular fashion, I still maintain that the only 'edge' in 'nedge' is in the word itself.

Here's the scenario that I analyzed to reach my conclusion in post #29 (and #38).

The LHS of the diagram illustrates the Nedge – a short position (red) nested completely within a long position (blue). Two pending orders, both with TPs and SLs.

The critical price levels are A, B, C, D, E, F. The problem is to replicate the Nedge using pending buy orders only. All orders must be placed before the first buy order is triggered. The RHS is my attempted solution, but it falls short. Perhaps somebody who's smarter than I am can complete it for me.

The Nedge starts by going long when price reaches B. As does order #1 in the replication. When price reaches D, the Nedge short kicks in, leaving us net flat. So we have to exit order #1, hence its TP is at D.

Now the Nedge's short will either reach its TP at C first, or its SL at E.
(i) if the TP, then the short is closed, we need to be net long again. So replication order #2 buys in again at C.
(ii) if the SL, then the short is closed, we need to be net long again. So replication order #3 buys in again at E.

Either way, only the Nedge's long position now remains. It will either reach its TP at F, or its SL at A. If (i) occurred, then we have order #2 open. If price falls to A, then order #2 is stopped out also: no problem, except that order #3 is not automatically cancelled. If price rises to F, then order #2 is exited at its TP at E, to allow order #3 to take over, so that we're still net long 1 unit. Then order #3 carries us to the finish line at F.

Here's a problem: if, after order #3 gets triggered in this fashion, and price subsequently falls to C, order #3 is exited, which fails to replicate the Nedge.

If (ii) occurred, then we have order #3 open. If price rises to F, then order #3 reaches its target: no problem, except that order #2 is not automatically cancelled. If price falls to A, then order #3 is exited at its SL at C, to allow order #2 to take over, so that we're still net long 1 unit. Then order #2 carries us to the stopout point at A.

Here's a problem: if, after order #2 gets triggered in this fashion, and price subsequently rises to E, order #2 is exited, which fails to replicate the Nedge.

Here's the final problem: if price simply rises from B directly thru to F, then orders #1 and #2 will be open simultaneously between C and D, capturing these pips twice, thereby failing to replicate the Nedge (although the additional profit is nice!). In other words, order #2 must not exist until order #1 reaches its target at D.

Is it possible to set up a different set of orders to replicate the Nedge? There may well be flaws in my logic, and branches that I haven't thought of, but I'm tired and off to bed now. Thus far I haven't managed to solve it, hopefully somebody else can.

http://www.forexfactory.com/showthre...=174626&page=2
As we said in posts 28 and 29 on the link above.

 

1. The S/L requirement on the hedge / Sell Trade gets in the way, and is the overriding factor that reduces the profitability of a trader that normally gets small counter trend trades correct.
2. Hence to actually match pip for pip, the only way around is to change my profitable trading system.
3. I need an ability to move the S/L of the hedge to the break even point of the SELL order (counter trend trade), so that the BUY order could be re-entered. at a no loss point.
4. However this then still requires the ability to have OCO ability of which MetaSTEALERTrader 5 does not have.

However, moving stop losses on small trades (counter trend trades) is counter intuitive. The trades need room to breathe and the moving the stop loss contradicts this need.

So again, even if we were to find a reason / method for moving my S/L to break even on my counter trend trades, the profitability is likely to be reduced anyway.

These are the edges / benefits in being able to hedge.



If a counter trend trade possibility arises:

1. EDGE in a HEDGE 1; I can trade it without closing long term goal of my trend trade. (Profit in both directions).
2. EDGE in a HEDGE 2: Because I can trade without closing other trades, I don't have to wait around to increase my equity (by adding to my position with another trend trade later).
3. EDGE in a HEDGE 3: I can trade with an EA that might contradict my manual system, but is still successful.
4. EDGE in a HEDGE 4: I can trade with multiple EAs, that may use methods that occassionally contradict each other.
5. EDGE in a HEDGE 5: Because I don't have to take the counter trend trade, trend trading is still open to me.
6. EDGE in a HEDGE 6: If I am presently at the SELL order point (hedge point), in order to capture the same pips I can keep a buy trade open. However with hedging not allowed, I am required to wait, or set 2 pending orders (whether EA or not) (BUY Limit and BUY Stop from the example) to try and capture the same pips. I say try, because if the hedge goes to a loss, in MT4 my long term trade was still open, while MetaSTEALERTrader 5, I can not re-enter until my SELL hits its stop loss.
7. EDGE in a HEDGE 7: In addition to this one of those orders will need to be cancelled (via OCO) something that would not be needed if my original long term BUY trade was still open like it would be in MT4. Therefore the ability to hedge makes things less complex.

Although an OCO would be required for Meta-STEALER-Trader 5 to overcome the edge in hedge 6 and 7 that MT4 allows, this is a function that developers of MetaSTEALERTrader 5 have omitted.

NOTE: that "EDGE in HEDGE" could be replaced with "The Advantage of MT4 over MetaSTEALERTrader 5".

I would encourage you to trade with a different brokerage firm if your broker downgrades to "MetaStealerTrader5"

Remember that this reduction in functionality from MT4 to "MetaSTEALERTrader 5" would not have been done if it did not profit the broker. Because remember the broker is whom Metatrader developers make their money from, not you.