NEW MT5 Seriously Stuffed For Traders Platform | Page 15 | Forex Factory

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Canadian traders, u guys are seriously lucky with taxes 10 replies

How to Access your Metatrader Platform MT4/MT5 Remotely 5 replies

Reliable and Stable Broker with MT5 platform 3 replies

Seriously, how I can GBP/USD go, is anything possible? 1 reply

Seriously, do forex systems have to be so complex? 11 replies

Attachments: NEW MT5 Seriously Stuffed For Traders Platform
Exit Attachments

NEW MT5 Seriously Stuffed For Traders Platform

  • #281
  • Nov 2, 2009 5:28am Nov 2, 2009 5:28am
Quoting Ruslander
stupid
To us with the ability to use our brains it is obvious who is stupid here. To you it may continue to be a mystery. In that case you can't be helped.
  • #282
  • Nov 2, 2009 6:54am Nov 2, 2009 6:54am
Quoting rossiya
Look I'm not going to close my profitable GBPJPY short for you or anyone. That's exactly where loss begins. I'm forced to do an extra trade AND be there when it happens. Typically on hourly reversals I just implement a trailing stop. With your system I have to sit there all day then reenter my original short trade.
The system is the same. To trade in MT5 you don't have to change the system. In fact, in the given example (you go SHORT on long-term and enter several counter-trend LONG positions during the course) you don't need to have to change anything at all. Sending the same orders to the MT5 will result in the same profit/loss.

Quoting rossiya
What's really funny is a guy claiming that I should exit a profitable short trade, then stay beside the terminal up all day and night and pay commission to reenter. IS that some new form of slavery? You sound like a typical USA sellout peddling your new fishbowl retail FOREX as the new reality. Right up there with that shill Donald J. Boudreaux who declared insider trading a good thing last week. Obviously there is an USA movement underway to make a Disneyland retail FOREX.

I can go outside and transact a long and short trade right on the street....
1. Personal attacks is a bad way to prove anything.
2. I have nothing to do with USA.
3. I don't support the "no-hedge rule" of NFA and new MT5 system, because it makes things more complex for me.

Quoting rossiya
No they're not equal in MT4, because I'm not setting SL or TP in any normal bar range. The market is headed down and it's may be a continuation trade with several daily bullish countertrades along the way. It sounds like that is way over your head.
If you don't set SL or TP then you close those positions manually in MT4, don't you? Your example with a long-term SHORT trend and several daily BULLISH counter-trend opportunities isn't much different from the ones given by me, aquaart or 7bit. It's tradable in MT5 with the same result as in MT4. If you don't understand how that's possible, just ask - I can demonstrate it on example with as many counter-trend positions as you like, on all timeframes.
  • #283
  • Nov 2, 2009 6:58am Nov 2, 2009 6:58am
Quoting Ruslander
This guy Enivid is so stupid, trying to teach us how to trade...
Your intelligence overwhelms my ability to respond to this enlightened and unquestionably wise commentary in an equal manner. Sorry.

Quoting Ruslander
Enivid, tell me, wtf are you trying to prove?
I thought that's quite obvious - I am trying to prove that in MT5 you can trade using the same systems and strategies with the same profit/loss result as in MT4.

Quoting Ruslander
are you "defending" metaquotes?
Are they under "attack"?!
  • #284
  • Edited 9:05pm Nov 2, 2009 7:05pm | Edited 9:05pm
Quoting enivid
The system is the same. To trade in MT5 you don't have to change the system. In fact, in the given example (you go SHORT on long-term and enter several counter-trend LONG positions during the course) you don't need to have to change anything at all.
In the MT4 martingale systems, a stop loss was often never used. Instead a counter trade was used to hedge the drawdown...

However, these systems are really a betting system, where direction of trade is not being predicted, but rather average size of uptrends and downtrends are being assumed. Hence if price turns around in the middle it really does not make a diffference. However, in MT5 because only one direction is covered, if direction changes this will mean there is need for closure and re-opening.

This is the result of a system where there is no need for prediction of entry or exit.

This is a system that worked in MT4 but is significantly more complexed in MT5. As it may rely upon 10 or more open positions (in MT4 both buy and sell) being amalgamated into 1 position at any one time.

This is not something that the brain will automatically get itself around when trying to do a quick trade. Especially if there is different lot sizes and different amounts to pips take profit for buy and sell trades.

MT4 made this easy, MT5 makes it difficult.


By the way 7bit I am starting to get my head around the differences.

Basically MT4 systems that rely upon the two trade direction:
go into drawdown.
but then recognise neutral positioning.
then take profit.

while in MT5 it recognises
the loss, which is equivalent to the size of the MT4 drawdown
putting it in a neutral position
then opens a position where take profit is equal to the profit (in MT4) plus recovery of loss in MT5.

This in the end makes the two platforms equal in trade size (spread or commission) and profit.
I just find that I have to change my thinking from counter trend to trend and positon sizing.
  • #285
  • Nov 2, 2009 8:59pm Nov 2, 2009 8:59pm
[quote=7bit;3196728]I think there is a misconception here, i always here "close and open [opposite position]" as if it were two distinct operations. This is not the case, it is done in one operation, just like in MT4: If you are 3 lots long and want to go short with 5 lots for a quick high probability scalp you simply sell 8 lots and your takeprofit is a buy limit of 8 lots that will restore the original position. You dont close 3 and then sell 5, you just sell 8!


quote]

yes , if you assume that you can hedge, i was assuming that we do not hedge and respect NFA rules, in that case, you really have to close your N long orders ,1 after 1, and then go short in MT4...and so MT5 would be better for that, my current strategy working on MT4 will work exactly the same in MT5, i am synthetizing on MT4 and i will not on MT5..period.
  • #286
  • Nov 2, 2009 9:21pm Nov 2, 2009 9:21pm
Quoting aquaart
7bit did prove it to me theoretically....

So yes I have been reliant upon the multi position system of MT4 for parts of my trading. Not as much as first thought. And as shown above this means that my system / strategy cannot be mirrored in its entirety in MT5.

Yes it can be mirrored it just needs greater forethought / planning.
  • #287
  • Nov 3, 2009 1:20am Nov 3, 2009 1:20am
Quoting aquaart
This in the end makes the two platforms equal in trade size (spread or commission) and profit.
I just find that I have to change my thinking from counter trend to trend and positon sizing.
I would think it impossible to operate a grid in MT5 as you're forced into a unidirectional stance and a single cycle size. So the result is a martingale management system where one hopes the trend isn't too large. The "neutral position" is also a function of timescale. The only probable outcome is a blown account.

You can set up two accounts. like IBFX. But at least with my broker the market spikes and their transfer system is offline until 3 hours after market open on Sunday. So no amount of diligence can keep you safe.
  • #288
  • Nov 3, 2009 2:20am Nov 3, 2009 2:20am
Quoting aquaart
In the MT4 martingale systems, a stop loss was often never used. Instead a counter trade was used to hedge the drawdown...

However, these systems are really a betting system, where direction of trade is not being predicted, but rather average size of uptrends and downtrends are being assumed. Hence if price turns around in the middle it really does not make a diffference. However, in MT5 because only one direction is covered, if direction changes this will mean there is need for closure and re-opening.
It doesn't really matter if you know your target/stop-loss or not. If you need to hedge a position in MT5, you just close it (or if you hedge with a different volume a difference-position is opened - all with one order, like in MT4). If you want to close one of the hedged position, you just re-open a position in MT5 (requires one order - the same as in MT4). It's just the matter of thinking. In MT4 when you hedge one position with another (equal volumes) you think that you are in the market, when in reality you are out of the market (MT5 situation), because both positions compensate each other.
  • #289
  • Nov 3, 2009 2:22am Nov 3, 2009 2:22am
Quoting rossiya
I would think it impossible to operate a grid in MT5 as you're forced into a unidirectional stance and a single cycle size. So the result is a martingale management system where one hopes the trend isn't too large. The "neutral position" is also a function of timescale. The only probable outcome is a blown account.

You can set up two accounts. like IBFX. But at least with my broker the market spikes and their transfer system is offline until 3 hours after market open on Sunday. So no amount of diligence can keep you safe.
It's actually possible to operate the grid strategy in MT5. Right now, it would be very difficult to do, but with a certain automation (and such scripts will appear soon), it's possible with the same profit/loss result as in MT4.
  • #290
  • Nov 3, 2009 3:48am Nov 3, 2009 3:48am
Quoting enivid
It's actually possible to operate the grid strategy in MT5. Right now, it would be very difficult to do, but with a certain automation (and such scripts will appear soon), it's possible with the same profit/loss result as in MT4.
I program yet I see no way to do it without hedging. Seeing a hedge-less script that grids without martingaling would be an eye-opener. Until I hear of someone doing it I'll assume it's vaporware. Most MT4 grids scripts already have severe deficiencies. Unless there's a perfect holy grail indicator, errors will compound and losses will grow exponentially. MT5 NFA adds nothing of value. It is obviously a kludge to enrich brokers at the expense of traders.
  • #291
  • Nov 3, 2009 7:23am Nov 3, 2009 7:23am
Quote
yes , if you assume that you can hedge, i was assuming that we do not hedge and respect NFA rules

No, even without hedging.

A sell will simply reduce or reverse an opposite position (in one step!).

In MT4 it would open a new position, effectively cancelling out parts or all of the opposing position.

In MT5 it will reduce (or even close or reverse) an opposing position, it will adjust the original position instead of opening a new one, the resulting position in MT5 will be the same as it would have been in MT4 if you added together all open MT4 trades and calculated their net position. Therefore you need the same number of pending stops and limits in MT5 as you would have needed in MT4 and they will be of the same lot size also (thus also the same commissions in both cases).
  • #292
  • Edited 8:40am Nov 3, 2009 7:44am | Edited 8:40am
Quoting rossiya
I would think it impossible to operate a grid in MT5 as you're forced into a unidirectional
Since everything you could possibly do in MT4 can (and and actually will) be mapped to the one-position-system it simply can not be impossible.

-

let x be a vector (x1...xn) of real numbers, denoting the currently open MT4 trade sizes (positive is long, negative is short)
let y be a real number representing an MT5 position
let f be a function: f(x)=y which is defined as follows:

f(x) = x1 + x2 + ... + xn

that function will give the corresponding MT5 position size for an MT4 scenario x. Since we know that (R,+) is an abelian group it is obvious that this function is defined for every x in its domain and will always map to a real number y!

In other words: It makes absolutely no sense to try and find any two or more real numbers that cannot be added together in R, which is what you are trying to suggest by the word "impossible"!
  • #293
  • Nov 3, 2009 8:10am Nov 3, 2009 8:10am
Quoting 7bit
Since everything you could possibly do in MT4 can (and and actually will) be mapped to the one-position-system it simply can not be impossible.
An automated grid system is usually reliant upon a set t/p, but not necessarily the same size for each individualised position in MT4. So closing orders early would be a real hindrance.

As a result many trades can spend a lot of time in the drawdown zone of one or both positions, that is between a sell position below and a buy position above. Hence recognising the p/l of a position early will actually increase the loss of the system significantly.

These systems are not built around turning points, but are built around likely trade ranges. Hence it is often not in the system to predict a turning point, even though it is obviously related to the trading range.
  • #294
  • Nov 3, 2009 8:51am Nov 3, 2009 8:51am
Quoting aquaart
An automated grid system is usually reliant upon a set t/p, but not necessarily the same size for each individualised position in MT4. So closing orders early would be a real hindrance.
Setting different stop-loss and take-profit levels to different parts of the the position is possible in MT5. Yes, doing that manually is more difficult than in MT4, but as 7bit has proved to me, it can be simplified with scripts.
  • #295
  • Nov 3, 2009 8:56am Nov 3, 2009 8:56am
Quoting aquaart
An automated grid system is usually reliant upon a set t/p, but not necessarily the same size for each individualised position in MT4. So closing orders early would be a real hindrance.
Grid systems are usually traded by scripts that place the orders automatically. Once the rules of how the grid should work are fixed it can be implemented in MT5 just as it would be in MT4.

Dont try to confuse yourself by looking at drawdowns of individual open trades vs. total drawdown while ignoring the others, in the end all floating and all realized p&l will be added together to ONE number. A grid is consisting of buy and sell orders that are constantly triggered and replaced by new ones by simple to follow rules.

It makes no differnce if you call the orders t/p or pending limit or pending stop, in the end there are only buy orders and sell orders and only one resulting net position, just like in MT4 when you add up all the floating and realized to calculate the current equity.

It is all completely equivalent.
  • #296
  • Edited 10:43am Nov 3, 2009 10:25am | Edited 10:43am
Quoting 7bit
f(x) = x1 + x2 + ... + xn[/i]
I realise that the sum of all positions will be abelian group. However, to represent the overall value accurately I think that this may be more accurate.

Profit/Loss = (abs(L1+...+Ln) + abs(S1+...+Sk)) - (n+k)Sp
Profit/Loss = x - (n+k)Sp

L is long position
S is short position-
Sp is spread
k the number of shorts
n the number of longs

With MT5 and the one position system every time the quotes turned at non-key points, it is likely that a counter trade would need to be opened, in case it is the final run up or down. (This is an assumption based on the systems I have seen) In other words each time it turned Sp is being paid. Remember that grids are predominantly based around trading ranges not turning points.

However, if it happens to be in a tight range between the long limit and short limit exit points, then: x will approach zero

As x approaches 0 the greater the influence that (n+k)*Sp will have which is the same for any trading and hence the greater the likelihood for an overall loss. However, due to the one position system of MT5 (n+k)*Sp is likely to be increasing significantly for a grid system.

However, in MT4 a new trade would not need to be opened every time it turned as drawdown is hedged and it really does not matter if the quotes have turned or not. Hence, in a tight trading range the maximum effect that (n+k)*Sp should have is 2*Sp in MT4, while L1, L2 or S1 S2 are not going to have their value changed
  • #297
  • Edited 6:14pm Nov 3, 2009 2:06pm | Edited 6:14pm
Quoting aquaart
However, to represent the overall value accurately I think that this may be more accurate.

Profit/Loss = (abs(L1+...+Ln) + abs(S1+...+Sk)) - (n+k)Sp
Profit/Loss = x - (n+k)Sp

L is long position
S is short position-
Sp is spread
k the number of shorts
n the number of longs
I left the spread away to make it easier to see my point and also did not calculate floating profit/loss like you did above but instead looked just at the net position (which is all you need to look at when translating from MT4 to MT5) (The equality of spread costs under all possible circumstances has already been proven, so we don't need to care about it anymore!)

Grid systems can be complicated so simulate mentally in the head and still be able to compare them and see why they are equal, thats why i prefer smaller and simpler examples.

Once it is proven and understood that each of the basic building blocks (orders, buying, selling, closing, t/p, s/l) that is needed to form any kind of strategy can each on its own be translated losslessly into MT5, we can simply deduce that that every strategy (no matter how complicated) consisting of many of these atomic building blocks can also be losslessly translated as a whole. At this point there simply is no need to create new examples over and over, one more complicated than the other, this is only useless brain acrobatics, they simply must translate somehow into the new system (and it doesn't even matter how) or one of our basic assumptions was wrong.

I have an MT4 -> Oanda bridge here that will translate any trading activity done by MT4 expert advisors or manual trading, even many different EAs at the same time on the same pair, hedging, non-FIFO and everything into the Oanda one position system by doing nothing else than constantly summing up all MT4 trades and deciding how to change the oanda position (buy/sell) to always hold it at the same net position that was calculated for MT4. It simply works!
  • #298
  • Nov 3, 2009 7:11pm Nov 3, 2009 7:11pm
Quoting 7bit
Grid systems can be complicated so simulate mentally in the head and still be able to compare them and see why they are equal, thats why i prefer smaller and simpler examples.

... one of our basic assumptions was wrong.
I prefer the simpler smaller systems too, but my system involved a neutal area that I was seeing as a position.

But where range is not being met, as is shown above, a grid system is likely to fail due to the consistent amounts of spread or small loss overwhelming the trade size.

But this is the result of needing to change position in a one position system like MT5, unlike MT4 where spread would only be paid twice to cover.

However, you are right, this is a very specific example and unlike what I first believed close to all MT4 systems can be converted into MT5 systems.

Quoting 7bit
I have an MT4 -> Oanda bridge here that will translate any trading activity done by MT4 expert advisors or manual trading, even many different EAs at the same time on the same pair, hedging, non-FIFO and everything into the Oanda one position system by doing nothing else than constantly summing up all MT4 trades and deciding how to change the oanda position (buy/sell) to always hold it at the same net position that was calculated for MT4. It simply works!
Self made EAs I suppose. Well done, hope many pips come your way.
  • #299
  • Nov 3, 2009 7:33pm Nov 3, 2009 7:33pm
Quoting rossiya
I program yet I see no way to do it without hedging. Seeing a hedge-less script that grids without martingaling would be an eye-opener. Until I hear of someone doing it I'll assume it's vaporware. Most MT4 grids scripts already have severe deficiencies. Unless there's a perfect holy grail indicator, errors will compound and losses will grow exponentially. MT5 NFA adds nothing of value. It is obviously a kludge to enrich brokers at the expense of traders.
I agree with you. All of the Grid makers that have made NFA compliant software arent creating anything that operates or performs like the hedged version. Until I see the hedged/unhedged EA's side by side with the same profits and operating balances - Its Vaporware!! (If anyone can lead me to demo's displaying this I'd be extremely grateful but I havent seen it and these publishers have a financial interest in creating it BUT HAVENT DONE IT!) - Its really doesnt make sense to even try. The True Interbank market doesnt care if you BUY/SELL (Why would they? Its YOUR Money) - I simply refuse to join a NFA broker and will prob reprogram my EA's in NinjaTrader or Jforex (Duka working on MT4) and avoid the Insanity!!
  • #300
  • Edited 8:24pm Nov 3, 2009 7:55pm | Edited 8:24pm
Quoting aquaart
a grid system is likely to fail due to the consistent amounts of spread or small loss overwhelming the trade size.

But this is the result of needing to change position in a one position system like MT5, unlike MT4 where spread would only be paid twice to cover.
I am absolutely sure you still have a little error in your understanding of the mapping MT4 -> MT5 but i can't exactly locate where it is because i can't view into your head.

A grid system is consistig of many entry orders layed out in constant intervals and each of it when triggered will do two things: first it will add amount x to the net position and secondly it will create an exit order, the take profit, also of amount x, in case of a long grid this will be a sell limit, in case of a short grid this will be a buy limit.

-> Take profit orders are nothing but ordinary limit orders, they come (via script) into existance whenever an entry order is triggered.

A grid on MT5 will have the same number of entry orders triggered when run in parallel with the same grid on MT4 (i think this should be obvious) and it will have the same number of pending exit orders at any time, namely the number of opened trades (in MT4) or in other words as many exit orders as would be needed to bring the open position back to zero (as many exit orders as there were entry orders triggered).

We have the same number of pending orders at any time, it will trigger the same number of orders when run in parallel on the same price feed for comparison and it will trigger them at the same prices. A buy stop or a buy limit (the entry order) will be filled when ask reaches this price, the corresponding take profit (which is nothing but a sell limit) will be filled when bid reaches its price.

As already shown before, whatever you do, you will always have the same number (and volume) of entry orders and the same number (and volume) of exit orders and they will be filled at the same prices. Therefore spread cost is always identical, as well as profit and loss.

You can even superimpose a long and a short grid on the same pair at the same time in a one-position system because everything is linear (Just like you can superimpose sound waves of different frequencies and running into different directions with a simple addition of the individual amplitudes at any place in space and time, they all propagate independently and you will always measure the sum of all individual undistorted amplitudes at any place, at any time. It is all strictly linear).

There is a principle of superposition for trading multiple strategies on one account also! The two grids would work as expected each on it's own and still on the same account, sharing the same total position and both be profitable (in a not so strong trending market) even without you having to know exactly which one just contributed exactly which part. It will still work and have the same result!

I find these facts quite amazing and once you have made yourself comfortable with these thoughts you will be able to lean back and view this whole trading stuff and all your strategies from a totally new perspective!
4 traders viewing now