arjfca wrote:The following is appliable only if your brooker is IB:
Using a software like TWSLINK and some code, you could have MC to control your trades, but IB server to maintain and control your entry, exit stop directly . Once a position is decided, IB managed it. You want to modify your stop, let IB do it. Give them the parameter and close your PC ( if you want). It will be managed as you planned it.
I use TWSLINK to send my orders from Excel. All my order are managed by me, but they are triggered directly from IB server. One there, I could close my PC and stop loss won't be affected. I did code also a time of validity. If my stop entry is not triggered during the validity time, order are automaticaly closed. Again, this is controlled on IB server. TWSLINK is not free, but this is a great tool if you want full control over your trade.
Thanks Martin, this is an important point. I looked into this somewhat further, and according the the Supported Brokers
page, a 'Stp' order is tracked by Interactive Brokers, while a 'Stop loss' is tracked by MultiCharts. I suppose that means that entry stops are managed by the broker, and exit stops by MultiCharts.
MC Support, is that correct? And why does MultiCharts manages these orders, and not the broker? According to NT
their orders (with the exeception of simulated stop orders) are directly submitted to the broker, and not kept by NT. So, technically it seems possible to remove this additional risk by letting the orders reside on the broker server.
furytrader wrote:This is not an "error" but I think it's something you should be aware of - depending on how your code is written, it's possible that MC will rapidly enter and cancel orders (limit and stop orders) if you're using IntraBarOrderGeneration - even if the orders are at the same price. This will happen if the most recent tick causes your conditions to be met, and then the next tick does not.
Thanks FuryTrader, that's a good point to take into consideration.
TJ wrote:IntraBarOrderGeneration was originally (and architecturally) designed to be used with market orders -- the intention was to get an order filled immediately instead of waiting until the next bar.
Although it works with limit order, it was not the original intent, the limit order has to work inside the "intrabar" order generation process, thus you see the order cancel and re-submit.
I suppose that now, given that IntraBarOrderGeneration is already quite 'old', there shouldn't be a difference in how orders are filled. Is that correct MC Support?