GoMarkets Discussion | Page 193 | Metals Mine

Options

Go to
Permalinks
Print Thread

Similar Threads

Share your experience with GoMarkets.Aud 3 replies

IC Markets, CLM Forex, GoMarkets and Directfx? 0 replies

lower speads between oanda MT4 & gomarkets 0 replies

Opinions on FxPrimus, GoMarkets vs Alpari UK 23 replies

feedback/reviews of GoMarkets? 5 replies

Attachments: GoMarkets Discussion
Exit Attachments

GoMarkets Discussion

  • #3,841
  • Nov 16, 2011 8:25am Nov 16, 2011 8:25am
Quoting nubcake
i see all of the pitchforks have been put away for now. how pleasant.
lol

In response to another post, I just realized MDP is million dollar pips. No, I do not use that strategy, I use my own custom strategy which uses position sizing and trades counter-trend. I really do not have issues with broker sabotage.

I think MT5 will solve this problem at least to some extent. MT4 is a ticket-based system whereas mt5 the acceptance and offset (at least from broker side will be quicker. Spread, slippage, and latency make those type of High frequency trading difficult for broker and trader, especially the trader. Unlike a heads up poker table, the broker cannot just fold if it does not want to take the trade. GoM and brokers like them agree to accept a trade under just about all conditions. Nevertheless, if the spreads widen due to surge of orders, it would be very short-term lived (maybe under a second to a couple of seconds), or slippage would occur between price requested and price filled.
Measure trends automatically with zero lag
  • #3,842
  • Nov 16, 2011 8:38am Nov 16, 2011 8:38am
Quoting ybfjax
lol

... Nevertheless, if the spreads widen due to surge of orders, it would be very short-term lived (maybe under a second to a couple of seconds), or slippage would occur between price requested and price filled.
Unless the lp is offsetting the risk of taking the trades by hedging them, and wants to maintain execution speed but has to compromise increased risk by increasing spreads for the rest of day or two. Going by Chris's words that's what happened last week.
  • #3,843
  • Nov 16, 2011 11:06pm Nov 16, 2011 11:06pm
Lucky I didnt speak to soon about spreads
  • #3,844
  • Nov 17, 2011 10:31am Nov 17, 2011 10:31am
Quoting jeanlouie
Everybody already did lose out because of MDP, not because of a broker intentionally increasing execution time. I read a transcript of the founder of Pepperstone FX that talked about the problems some EAs can cause by flooding the market with an insane amount of similar sized orders at the same price. Even with their optic fibre server to LP connection, filling orders is difficult.

But let's say they did ban MDP, and the Fap eas, I'd bet there'd be the same amount of anger against a broker that puts a ban as one that has account holders thinking...
Actually I completely disagree, I'd rather a broker say an EA is banned than start fiddling with our trades in an effort to thwart an EA. MDP is dead anyway so why not just let nature take it's course, all the money those MDP traders made is being handed back to the market naturally. I've took a nice chunck of it myself using my own counter MDP ea, of course that no longer works thanks to the spreads and execution we now have.
{Promotion Removed}
  • #3,845
  • Nov 17, 2011 1:50pm Nov 17, 2011 1:50pm
What I don't understand is why don't Brokers just trade MDP with their millions that they already made? Why making it difficult for traders in stead of joining the party!!
  • #3,846
  • Nov 17, 2011 3:40pm Nov 17, 2011 3:40pm
Quoting leerees
Actually I completely disagree, I'd rather a broker say an EA is banned than start fiddling with our trades in an effort to thwart an EA. MDP is dead anyway so why not just let nature take it's course, all the money those MDP traders made is being handed back to the market naturally. I've took a nice chunck of it myself using my own counter MDP ea, of course that no longer works thanks to the spreads and execution we now have.
If the order cannot be filled at requested price, then it will either be delayed, slipped, partially filled, or rejected altogether. With a "no requotes....ever" business model, barring any significant mechanical failure, GoM et al are basically guaranteeing that you will get filled. So rather than rejecting the order if price has moved since you requested it, you either get delayed or slipped. A 'true' limit order is an attempt to guarantee the same or better requested price, but whether you get filled or not is different story.

EAs like those will come and go. You just cannot rely on always getting the price you want. You have to take those types of deviations into account with systems trading. When you assume that you will always get the price you request....well don't make assumptions. Me personally slippage usually works in my favor.
Measure trends automatically with zero lag
  • #3,847
  • Edited 6:48pm Nov 17, 2011 5:19pm | Edited 6:48pm
Quoting jeanlouie
Everybody already did lose out because of MDP, not because of a broker intentionally increasing execution time. I read a transcript of the founder of Pepperstone FX that talked about the problems some EAs can cause by flooding the market with an insane amount of similar sized orders at the same price. Even with their optic fibre server to LP connection, filling orders is difficult.

But let's say they did ban MDP, and the Fap eas, I'd bet there'd be the same amount of anger against a broker that puts a ban as one that has account holders thinking...
after reading your post , i have dust off and put MDP on test run 2 broker (not on go) , my version might be old one ( 1.1.0), so far it's only using stop order , sl and TP . it' did not send any market order , low/0 stop distance @ Go might have extra advantages compare to other Australian Broker . MDP R:R not enough. (one day loss can wipe out 1 week profit.)
Mohan
  • #3,848
  • Nov 17, 2011 7:01pm Nov 17, 2011 7:01pm
Quoting leerees
Actually I completely disagree, I'd rather a broker say an EA is banned than start fiddling with our trades in an effort to thwart an EA. MDP is dead anyway so why not just let nature take it's course, all the money those MDP traders made is being handed back to the market naturally. I've took a nice chunck of it myself using my own counter MDP ea, of course that no longer works thanks to the spreads and execution we now have.
Hold on, I didn't say that I wouldn't want a broker banning an ea, like you I'd actually prefer it because of the problems they create for everyone else, namely in terms of liquidity and execution time, an lp may have to cover themselves and in doing so inconvenience all other traders.

But for a broker, what is the best business sense here? (Taking a guess here) If a broker bans an ea, they'd loose a lot of business, every broker has thousands of accounts running eas, multiple trades every hour, sometimes every minute, each trade paying commission or markup, that's a lot of business, I'd bet it's more than the amount of clients that would be bothered to leave.
  • #3,849
  • Nov 17, 2011 7:22pm Nov 17, 2011 7:22pm
Quoting Dkmillion
What I don't understand is why don't Brokers just trade MDP with their millions that they already made? Why making it difficult for traders in stead of joining the party!!
MDP is not made for large accounts, it requires liquidity at every price level that there is an ea signal, take this into consideration:

(If anything is wrong please correct)
Average daily fx volume is about 4trillion, spot fx takes up about 1.5trillion, a day.
Per hour spot fx volume is 62.5billion
Per minute is 1.04billion
Per second is 17.36million

Now on the most traded pair, the EurUsd, takes up about a third of all fx volume, so the amount of liquidity averaged out in spot fx, per second (when a signal would pop up and need to be filled), per the highest traded pair is 5.208million. With 100:1 leverage a position needs only be 52k to max out this figure, and that equates to 52lots a second, that wants to filled instantly.

Now that may sound like a lot, but that's got to be spread out amongst every order in the world every second, of course with many orders cancelling eachother out eg someone buys eur 10lot and another sells eur 10lot. So imagine a million dollar account trading an ea that needs near instant liquidity at a specific level. It is food for thought.
  • #3,850
  • Nov 17, 2011 8:25pm Nov 17, 2011 8:25pm
Quoting Dkmillion
What I don't understand is why don't Brokers just trade MDP with their millions that they already made? Why making it difficult for traders in stead of joining the party!!
why MDP developers trying to sell EA for $99 instate of making money with trading ? most of the Ea's first make money then loose money (2 feet up 4 feet down),
Mohan
  • #3,851
  • Nov 18, 2011 1:54am Nov 18, 2011 1:54am
Hmmm,

Slipped .5 pip on limit entry, slipped 1.9 pips on preset stop loss, 2 pip spread, so to take a trade that equates to costs of 4.4 pips for an EU trade.........

Not really tradeable is it
Money grows on the tree of persistence
  • #3,852
  • Nov 18, 2011 2:13am Nov 18, 2011 2:13am
Quoting ozmacca
Hmmm,

Slipped .5 pip on limit entry, slipped 1.9 pips on preset stop loss, 2 pip spread, so to take a trade that equates to costs of 4.4 pips for an EU trade.........

Not really tradeable is it
Hi,

I was just about to write a post about this issue. All other things aside that are mentioned in this long thread, the issue of slippage (at all times of day and night) is the single most concerning issue I now have with GoM. I have been with them for over two years and no slippage till the last few weeks.

I am now on the hunt for a reliable broker (within reason, no need to let me know they are all unreliable in some form!) just want to get in trades (and out) with no slippage (I do not trade news) I can handle spreads not being the VERY best around, to me no slippage is key... basically the way GoM were working for 2 years up until the last month.

If anyone can speed up my quest to find a healthly broker alternative I would be most grateful.

Once again I am not here to slate GoM just stating a personal fact and need to address this issue, after all this is a business not just a bit of fun (for me anyway)

Thanks.
  • #3,853
  • Edited 2:50am Nov 18, 2011 2:40am | Edited 2:50am
Quoting ozmacca
Hmmm,

Slipped .5 pip on limit entry, slipped 1.9 pips on preset stop loss, 2 pip spread, so to take a trade that equates to costs of 4.4 pips for an EU trade.........

Not really tradeable is it
negative slip on limit order is unacceptable
Mohan
  • #3,854
  • Nov 18, 2011 2:55am Nov 18, 2011 2:55am
I think opposite.
Slippage is a condition of real forex market.
The only brokers that can give zero slippage are market makers.
Forex, and any quote on any instrument, works on ticks, that are single different prices quotation.
If I want open an order at 1.3000 and don't exist a tick at that price the order (stoploss/takeprofit is the same case) will NOT be "filled" at that price.
Or will be filled if the tick exist and at "that exact price" exist a sufficient liquidity on counterparts to "fill" my order.
Otherwise my order will be filled at the nearest price where the liquidity needed will be found on liquidity provider server.


Where is the scam is when the slippage is always or in average against clients (see FXCM fined).
The slippage must be a random value and the average slippage should be zero.

So, if I get a slippage could be a good sign from a broker, could mean that the orders are really filled from a counterpart.
Yes, could be also a plugin like "Virtual dealer" at work on server, but in this case slippage will be in average against client ....
  • #3,855
  • Edited 3:13am Nov 18, 2011 2:57am | Edited 3:13am
Quoting positiveday
I think opposite.
Slippage is a condition of real forex market.
....
yes , but not on limit order , stop order and market order subject to slippage, MM are well known for miles away Slippage
Mohan
  • #3,856
  • Nov 18, 2011 3:00am Nov 18, 2011 3:00am
Quoting mohan76
yes , but not on limit order , stop order and market order subject to slippage,
If the price that you want don't exist, the price don't exist.
There is not difference.
  • #3,857
  • Nov 18, 2011 3:08am Nov 18, 2011 3:08am
Quoting positiveday
I think opposite.
Slippage is a condition of real forex market.
The only brokers that can give zero slippage are market makers.
Forex, and any quote on any instrument, works on ticks, that are single different prices quotation.
If I want open an order at 1.3000 and don't exist a tick at that price the order (stoploss/takeprofit is the same case) will NOT be "filled" at that price.
Or will be filled if the tick exist and at "that exact price" exist a sufficient liquidity on counterparts to "fill" my order.
Otherwise my order will be filled...

I honestly understand all that, perfectly. My issue is that for me personally placing pending orders (not limit orders just to clarify) it was all working fine from my end (market makers or not) until recently, but now that is not so.

Once again just to clarify I understand all what you said.
  • #3,858
  • Nov 18, 2011 3:10am Nov 18, 2011 3:10am
Quoting positiveday
If the price that you want don't exist, the price don't exist.
There is not difference.
limit order : order was there before price reach that level. if price available it get filled otherwise ignored .

if i am not wrong STP publish/advertise Limit order in the market
Mohan
  • #3,859
  • Nov 18, 2011 3:51am Nov 18, 2011 3:51am
I think the problem is coming from the lack of tick volume, the tick count has been rather static of late. There used to be quite a bit of variation in the number of ticks per minute, now they are usually about 70-90 ticks.

Compare one broker with another, Go markets is less than 100 tpm the other more than 500 tpm so we get gaps, so we get slippage when the price jumps trying to catch up for the missing ticks.

The red line is 500 ticks per minute
Attached Image(s) (click to enlarge)
Click to Enlarge Name: go vol.gif Size: 14 KB
Click to Enlarge Name: synergy vol.gif Size: 16 KB
Money grows on the tree of persistence
  • #3,860
  • Nov 18, 2011 3:59am Nov 18, 2011 3:59am
Quoting ozmacca
I think the problem is coming from the lack of tick volume, the tick count has been rather static of late. There used to be quite a bit of variation in the number of ticks per minute, now they are usually about 70-90 ticks.

Compare one broker with another, Go markets is less than 100 tpm the other more than 500 tpm so we get gaps, so we get slippage when the price jumps trying to catch up for the missing ticks.

The red line is 500 ticks per minute
This is an interesting matter, if quotes are filtered there is a bigger average difference tick to tick, so slippage could happen more frequently.
But should be also in average about zero.
I wrote a tick counter recorder on csv file, now I put on chart and start to record ticks number on some broker .....
2 traders viewing now