Support Board
Support Board
Search Board
Control Panel
View My Posts / Threads
Direct MessagesDate/Time: Fri, 03 May 2024 06:41:27 +0000
[Scale in with independant subsequent attached orders] Possible through configuration?
View Count: 1010
| [2019-09-23 05:49:10] |
| owneroxxor - Posts: 16 |
|
Hi there SC Team. I'm currently developing an ACSIL backtester to test on B3 Exchange futures. Since I use a NET account on B3, it is a must for me to have the "Scale in" option turned on, the same goes to "Scale out". With that, I use theoretical average price as well. Everything goes fine until I realise something that broke my whole ACSIL bot strategy concept. Happens that (I don't know your reasons why this was constructed tied this way) but the "Scale in" option doesn't let subsequent orders have their own individual target attached orders, all the subsequent target attached orders are placed together with the first attached order of the position. Is it possible to make them independant via configuration even with "Scale in" turned on? (I just use Scale in to simulate the NET account, never wanted it to control the behavior of my subsequent attached orders on the position). My strategy really depends on this. If it isn't possible to do via configuration nowdays, could there be an option on a next version to make us choose if we want "Scale in" to control the subsequent attached orders or not? Thanks in advance |
| [2019-09-23 11:03:11] |
| |
|
Therefore you do not want to use Scale In. It is that simple. Do not use it. And you have the ability to set specific prices for the Attached Orders whether through ACSIL, or even through the user interface when they are submitted. And not sure how this is related to the average price. There are different methods of calculation: Trading Information Windows: How Average Price for Positions Is Calculated and Used You can always obtain the order fills for the current Position and do your own calculation: Automated Trading From an Advanced Custom Study: sc.GetOrderFillEntry() 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: 2019-09-23 11:04:03
|
| [2019-09-23 14:09:41] |
| owneroxxor - Posts: 16 |
|
Therefore you do not want to use Scale In. It is that simple. Do not use it. And you have the ability to set specific prices for the Attached Orders whether through ACSIL, or even through the user interface when they are submitted.
Yeah, but how will I emulate the NET account without it? You see I can't have both, that is why I wrote this post. My strategy doesn't work with HEDGING account, but I need independant attached targets of subsequent orders to make my scale outs.Please, show me a way that I can make use of both these features at the same time in Sierra Chart. It surprises me that no one else ever felt need for this until now. Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-09-23 14:10:12
|
| [2019-09-23 14:14:50] |
| |
|
We are not understanding this. It sounds like you have a need to calculate the Position average price a certain way? We do not know what you mean by this: but how will I emulate the NET account without it?
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 |
| [2019-09-23 15:24:42] |
| owneroxxor - Posts: 16 |
|
Let me explain it. Suppose that I have 2 buy limit orders #1 and #2 with the same lot, at respective prices 100 and 90. Both of them have attached targets of 4 ticks for exemple, supposing the tick size is 5, then #1 has an attached target at 120 and #2 at 110. Good. When #1 is triggered, it places a sell limit order at 120 (#3). If the price then go further and trigger #2, it should place another limit sell at 110 as well, and my average price now is 95. Since my strategy rely on having independant placed targets as in the exemple above, that is perfectly achievable without using Scale In. Now here comes the problem, when the price turns and hit the first target #4, theoretically, my average price will go down to 80, but I dont want Sierra Chart to compute the profit of this closed order on Closed P/L yet, I just want it to show me the updated Open P/L of the new average price of 80 (like a NET account do, refer to this article: https://www.mql5.com/en/articles/2299), that is why I use Scale In and Scale Out, to simulate a standard netting account. So I need to have both features working at the same time. That is my struggleness.
|
| [2019-09-26 02:01:29] |
| |
|
We are going to add to this study: Trading Information Windows: Trading: Profit/Loss Text Study A new Input to display the Daily ClosedFlatToFlatTradesProfitLoss which might give you what you are looking for. If that does not help, we definitively cannot provide what you are looking for. It will not help to ask further. 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 |
To post a message in this thread, you need to log in with your Sierra Chart account: