Support Board
Support Board
Search Board
Control Panel
View My Posts / Threads
Direct MessagesDate/Time: Thu, 02 May 2024 17:07:47 +0000
Second trade entry logic ERROR!
View Count: 3375
| [2020-08-26 16:35:57] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
Hi, After I made my first entry and it is positive, and then make my second entry, and the associate break-even stop from the second entry gets hit, it takes out the first (still profitable) entry, not the second entry. I tried several different setups, with fast in break even, trailing stops, but I keep getting the same errors. How can I make sure that if I make multiple entries, the associate breakeven, stop, and/or trailing stop, stays with its original entry. What do I need to change? Any suggestions? UPDATE! Watch the video below and see it yourself what I try to explain in a simple video. I made some screen prints for those who do not like to watch video, in the attached zip file :-) Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-09-02 08:23:53
|
 The video in 5 pictures.zip - Attached On 2020-08-28 11:19:29 UTC - Size: 1.46 MB - 334 views |
| [2020-08-26 21:54:49] |
| User90125 - Posts: 715 |
|
Sounds like you want LIFO not FIFO then.
|
| [2020-08-27 07:53:02] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
lol, depends how you call it. all the triggers from the first entry (Stoploss, target, Breakeven etc) should only react to the first entry price and the first entry rules. iow if the first entry is in Breakeven, it should stay in breakeven, till the breakeven price is hit. Now with a second entry, it should be a separate (read: not interact with the first entry at all!) So if the second entry get stopped out, if should be that the second entry get taken out, and the first entry which is still in breakeven stays that way. What happens in real life, when the stoploss from the second entry is hit (while the first entry is still in breakeven) the first entry is actually taken out! and the second entry stays open. Really #$*()#$*)#$_#_! How do I change this!!!! |
| [2020-08-27 08:14:28] |
| |
|
There are so many problems with what you are saying. It is not clear and we are not fully understanding it and to truly comprehend it requires so much additional information. And there are so many variables involved, that we are just not going to provide help, other than refer you to this setting which controls the average price calculation: Trading Information Windows: How Average Price for Positions Is Calculated and Used For example how do you come to this conclusion?: when hit, takes out the first (still profitable) entry, not the second entry.
. How can I make sure that if I make multiple entries, the associate breakeven, stop, and/or trailing stop, stays with its original entry.(so of first in first out basis!!) We do not know. Sounds like an impossibility to us due to so much variability with configuration and the lack of information.We are declining further support here. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-08-27 08:14:54
|
| [2020-08-27 10:11:57] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
okay maybe a super simple video will make it clear. I use a simple bracket, one entry with one lot, and the Breakeven goes after hit to entry price +2, with a simple target. The problem starts when I make the second entry, when that second entry also goes in breakeven, and then the second entry break even stop gets hit, this results in the first entry (READ:which is still in breakeven and this breakeven of the first trade entry is NOT Hit by the current price) gets taken out. So now I still have the second trade entry open, while the second trade entry breakeven stop was actually triggered (so the second trade entry should be flat, but is not!), and the first trade entry break even stop was not triggered at all but my first trade entry was taken out! I should have, when the second trade breakeven stop was triggered still have my first trade entry (still in Break even) and my second trade entry should have been taken out. Which it did not! THIS ALL can be seen in the small video and I can reproduce in many many different ways ( with trailing stops, or breakevens etc. etc.) In this case it can be very clearly seen that when the break even stop of the second trade was hit, the second entry was not going flat (stopped out) but instead my first entry was going flat.. And the first entry break even stop, becomes now the Normal Stop from the second entry I made(??) Yes, just see the video it makes it all very clear. For example how do you come to this conclusion?: just watch the video and you will come to the same conclusion.We are declining further support here. WHOOOOOO! THANKS for your kind words! (BUT THE PROBLEM IS STILL THERE!! )
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-08-27 10:44:55
|
Attachment Deleted. |
| [2020-08-27 12:25:24] |
| User90125 - Posts: 715 |
|
Attach a copy of your chartbook (.cht) and I'll try the same thing myself.
|
| [2020-08-27 12:53:24] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
I think you can do this with any chartbook, you just need to have a stop or break-even-stop in your attached orders settings. But you will find the a simple Chartbook and attached orders settings I used below, I used the NQ chart, but you can select any, since that is not important. |
| SimpleBracket-Fault logic.twconfig - Attached On 2020-08-27 12:50:50 UTC - Size: 4.85 KB - 312 views Simple fault logic CB.Cht - Attached On 2020-08-27 12:51:03 UTC - Size: 16.19 KB - 280 views |
| [2020-08-28 07:54:29] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
Hi User212764, And? did you have the same findings as in my video?
|
| [2020-08-28 09:29:23] |
| User90125 - Posts: 715 |
|
Not yet. i'll probably test LIVE next week on the e-micro MNQ, which is less capital intensive that the e-mini NQ by a factor of ten (not including fees, etc.) It might be as simple as adjusting the scale in/scale out settings to get the results you want. Also check your Open Position Average Price and see if using LIFO matching helps. |
| [2020-08-28 10:03:12] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
Well you can do this on any chart life, but also in replay, it gets the same results.. In replay you can pick your spots, so you do not have to wait around too long.. just a tip..:-)
|
| [2020-08-28 11:22:10] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
Just updated my first post with some screen shots from the video..
|
| [2020-08-28 18:33:42] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
Okay I tried :Chart >> Chart Settings >> Advanced Settings 3 >> Use Last In First Out Fill Matching. Apparently it does not work with an automatic stop to breakeven (+x) setting in your attached orders.. What a shame, even an simple MT4 could do this.. How can you ever scale in and out, and not have this simple feature working correctly.. (?) :-( |
| [2020-08-28 19:52:29] |
| Sawtooth - Posts: 3990 |
|
It seems to work for me. NQU20, 34 Trades, 2020-08-27, Brussels timezone Sequence: - in 9:58:07 bar, go short at 11976.50 - at its +10 ticks, its stop moves to its BE+2 at 11976.00, as expected. - in 10:00:17 bar, go short again at 11968.50 - at its +10 ticks, its stop moves to its BE+2 at 11968.00, as expected. - price retraces to 11968.00 and the second entry is stopped out, and its target is OCO'd. - the first entry's stop and target remain. - the only difference at this point is the FIFO/LIFO setting used for each sequence. With the chart set to FIFO, the Position Average Price after the second entry stopped out is 11968.50 With the chart set to LIFO, the Position Average Price after the second entry stopped out is 11976.50 (the first entry's price). Scale In and Scale Out are not checked Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-08-28 19:54:19
|
| [2020-08-28 20:18:18] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
Hi Tomgib, THANKS FOR YOUR REPLY! Somehow I can't get it to work properly, I will do some more tests This weekend, so far no luck.. |
| [2020-08-28 20:50:59] |
| Sawtooth - Posts: 3990 |
|
I took another look, and I see what you are saying: The DPL when the second entry stops out is $160/32 ticks, which is the first entry's winnings, not the second entry's 2 ticks winnings. However, when the first entry hits its target, the DPL for both entries is the same as it would have been had the second entry been 2 ticks profit. IOW: - second entry makes +32 ticks - first entry makes +26 more ticks - total +58 ticks If the second entry made +2 ticks, first entry would have made +56 ticks. Same total of +58 ticks. Same profit, but since the chart was set to LIFO, the trade's connecting lines are confusing at best, inaccurate at worst. See attached. Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-08-28 21:01:53
|
 Capture.PNG / V - Attached On 2020-08-28 20:50:17 UTC - Size: 42.6 KB - 304 views |
| [2020-08-28 21:22:38] |
| |
|
The basic reason you cannot accomplish reliably what you want is that order fills are matched according to time and according to LIFO or FIFO matching. There simply is no association with the parent order and child order relationship. It is completely unpredictable as to how the order fills will be matched because it is not known exactly what the Target and Stop order offsets are and the order in which they would fill. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-09-01 20:08:06
|
| [2020-08-29 09:14:52] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
Dear Engineering, Am I hearing this correctly? It can not be done, having a entry and it's stop move to breakeven +X, on multiple entries, and have the stop working for their associate entry? Should this not be a very, very basic feature? Even a simple MT4 platform can do this. I certainly hope I just misunderstood your message. |
| [2020-08-29 09:25:05] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
@ Tomgilb, Of course that sounds all right your calculations, but what if after the first entry was taken out, the price would go back to the (new) second entry stop, you would have had: +32-28 = +4 ticks only. This sounds still about the same, but the whole thing becomes even more screwed up, if you have more then 2 contracts, or one entry with two contracts and the second entry with one, etc... I had this on my account and made a (big) loss, what should have been a small profit, and could not make any sense about what happened. Hence the MAIN reason, why I started to investigate all this.. With a stop, I would like to protect a certain entry price, not a random price. |
| [2020-08-29 11:44:44] |
| Sawtooth - Posts: 3990 |
|
Of course that sounds all right your calculations, but what if...
Yes, it worked as a simplistic example, and I see your point for more complex situations.With a stop, I would like to protect a certain entry price, not a random price.
I couldn't agree more.Should this not be a very, very basic feature?
You would think it would be. Surprised and disappointed it's not.
Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-08-29 11:45:04
|
| [2020-08-29 11:59:36] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
You would think it would be. Surprised and disappointed it's not.
YES! Me too! It is a deal breaker for me.I am also surprised that not more people are complaining about this! |
| [2020-08-29 16:30:30] |
| AlexPereira - Posts: 197 |
|
I am also surprised that not more people are complaining about this!
If I may give my opinion, I think I understand what you are feeling. This is something that "europeans" with "european" brokers are used to, but US trader not. People aren't complaining about this, because most ( all ? ) US based trading software work like this, by being netting accounts and not allowing hedging. I may be wrong here, but some years ago when I was trying out software, I think neither NT or MC or etc behave differently ( they might now, dunno ). In the US, accounts are netting and LIFO based, so yes, the stop would trigger the first one. But it doesn't really matter, in a US netting LIFO account, positions don't have a "stop and target" assigned like "european" brokers/software, but instead it only matters if you are positive or negative quantity. Example ... if you have a +1 position, if you do a -1 position, on hedging "non netting" accounts, you would have two different positions. On US, you would have closed the first position. So US software just "assumes" this, and doesn't assign stop and target to each position like "european broker/software" does. As an example, when I was building a "software" with FXCM api, in the specs, there is a StopLoss and Target linked to the position, but the api states that in US accounts, that "StopLoss and Target" don't exist. ( yes, the api doc is from before fxcm being banned from US ). Anyway, I am not trying to say there should or should not, you are right or wrong, just trying to carefull help understand. |
| [2020-08-31 11:21:24] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
Hi Alex, all good, I do understand, But I see this as an essential part for any day trader, especially if you want to scale in, and out, on smaller time frames. In my eyes SC just lost a lot of points, any post about scaling in and out and/or breakeven stops, etc. suddenly look a bit like $(#)_$#$. It is not a free platform, we are all paying for this, and therefor I expect the basic minimums to work properly, without all kinds of workarounds or so. |
| [2020-09-01 20:10:13] |
| |
|
We want to be 100% clear here. There is no problem whatsoever here. None at all. You are talking about a nonexistent issue. It can not be done, having a entry and it's stop move to breakeven +X, on multiple entries, This is supported and works properly. and have the stop working for their associate entry? This is a nonsensical thing you are saying. There is a stop and it is working, and when It triggers it triggers. That is it. Depending upon when it triggers, and the timing of the order fill, will determine how it is matched with another fill but that is without regard to its parent order.We have nothing further to say. To say something is not working properly in Sierra Chart and there some kind of problem and other programs are doing this right and Sierra Chart is wrong, is just not true. If you have an issue, for some unknown nonsensical reason, discontinue Sierra Chart and go elsewhere rather than posting all this nonsense on this support board. And we also see you are using Rithmic and the way Rithmic works is no different than Sierra Chart in this regard. The order of operations for additions and subtractions which is the case with order fills, does not affect the final profit/loss when the position is then flat. The Rithmic system, your brokers accounting, futures exchanges and Sierra Chart simply do not match fills with regards to the association between parent order and its child orders. They would use either LIFO or FIFO. One or the other. This is time based matching. Sierra Chart Support - Engineering Level Your definitive source for support. Other responses are from users. Try to keep your questions brief and to the point. Be aware of support policy: https://www.sierrachart.com/index.php?l=PostingInformation.php#GeneralInformation For the most reliable, advanced, and zero cost futures order routing, *change* to the Teton service: Sierra Chart Teton Futures Order Routing Date Time Of Last Edit: 2020-09-02 08:29:05
|
| [2020-09-02 09:00:55] |
| User964132 - Posts: 93 |
|
What can be for one person a “nonsensical thing” can be for another “essential”; should not everybody decide that for his/her own? With multiple entries (especially with more than two), I would like to protect a certain entry price with a stop, and not a (random) entry price that the platform decides, Nothing further. I am just disappointed and I am apparently not the only one.. "Thanks for your kind and helping hand, to find a way around this, and coming up with alternatives, iso downplaying the issue, your patient was highly appreciated." |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: