ProOrder stopped – stop below minimum distance (IG Index)
- This topic has 54 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks ago by
.
-
no – no trailing stops. Very, very simple – set limit orders (buy and sell) at defined levels with % stops and take profits….nothing more complicated than that!
Nothing Yen related I don’t think, same issue with GBP/USD, EUR/USD etc.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I’ve had a response from IG, which is helpful to understand what has happened but not helpful in relation to how my systems work!
IG say: “Checking with our dealing desk in regards to this issue, a business decision has been made to set the minimum distance for Working Orders to 50 points for Automated Trading systems, which is why you are receiving rejections with your system. This setting will be in place until further notice, however, there is no current estimation on when this will be reverted.”
I have gone back to seek clarification on whether this is for FX or all trades, confirmation that they do actually expect the decision to be reverted albeit there is no current estimate on time and confirmation that the error message received was incorrect – rather than it being an issue with the stop distance, it is an issue with the limit order distance….will confirm when they have responded to my additional questions.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Can’t see anything else on their site about it but seems to have happened in the past (2016) based on some of their forum comments.
I assume they aren’t just doing this for me – I’m a very small fish, just playing around! 😂
They haven’t come back to me yet to clarify re. the additional questions I asked.
I did update a couple of systems yesterday to see if they worked – widened the limit order levels significantly. The good news is that the orders successfully went through and showed in pending orders….bad news is that they were so wide, nothing actually triggered a deal! Didn’t change anything to do with stops so this at least confirms that it is a limit order distance issue rather than a stop distance issue, which the PRT error message suggested.
IG are going to be missing out on a lot of spread income if there are much fewer deals being placed as a result of the larger minimum distance. Backtesting suggests that my (new) systems with the wider limits may only generate 150 deals per year compared to 6,000+ – that’s quite a hit they will be taking if we multiply it out across the user base. Not quite sure what they are trying to achieve by doing it? 🤷♂️
1 user thanked author for this post.
Hi Giddy – thanks for this.
The story is a bit longer, interesting and also devastating. Please notice that what I am going to say about this is my own personal view on the matter, just as well as it is my own reasoning. It is allowed to call it ridiculous.
You have seen that this distance applies to AutoTrading only, right ? Now why would that be …
As this is about CFDs , a broker like IG has to hedge what you scalp. This is all minimal stuff and it is also often very short-lasting stuff. In other words, before they managed to hedge or cover-for, you are out already. This means they (mostly) lost. How do they solve this ?
Put the Limit minimum distance such that it will take ages for you to grasp an order, ehh … if at all.
And about this : it is superb that by now you even tried it, and what happened is exactly what I predicted (I have a witness over here – haha). You can’t trade any more.So an insignificant looking change (50 points distance for Working Orders) now causes you to be harmless to them from now on.
On a side note I predicted this as a kind of in-advance conspiracy theory, because I would be in the same boat (and beyond). And worse : after my last post yesterday, I have been reading partly into 1000+++ negative reviews about subjects like this, and while I already had my opinion about IG (you may seen that here and there in between lines), now I am 100% sure about this; they do everything to get your money, or like in this case : not to lose their own. Btw, this would be normal business policy if you ask me. One thing : if you spent 1000s of hours (like me) on a strategy which depends on rules, these rules should not change when they like it (written where ???) and should not make your investments worthless.
Also : I realise that this is a kind of an amateur (retail-) response from me, because I think in the pro-world these fights are on-going always. But there is one broker where everybody complaints about the exact same : and this is IG and now your (our ?) subject.So you can forget about using your strategy from now on, unless you are able to outsmart them.
Veerrryyy interesting …. the revelations in the last few posts!able to outsmart them.
No Pending Orders, Buy / SellShort at Market on short / fast TF?
1 user thanked author for this post.
Of course. And the only implication would be : no BackTesting possible. But hey, if your Strategy works, it just does. Still it would work a little different, but I’d say this is doable.
A kind of hint : I already tested with this. And the real bummer/downside is that this really does not provide more than 3 days of backtesting on anything working less than a minute (actually it’s the “seconds” thing, so 90 seconds would also provide 3 days only). Mind you, this is for indexes (or “futures” in faked version). On Fx the seconds would provide 1 month (with 1M bars).
1 user thanked author for this post.
Find exclusive trading pro-tools on 
