You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
RFC: Change the API, so customizable OHLC prices simulation are possible
Context
Currently, there are only 2 OHLC prices simulations possible.
Fixed Ordering
Adaptive Ordering
Both presents some limits. e.g. fixed ordering presents a problem during a bracket orders, when bracket orders are in one bar - it might create unrealistically large profits or large loses, if trades are made in one direction with a tight delta.
I propose, that OHLC prices simulation function is fully customizable (possibly with d-rng e.g. as a inherited class member), so the simulation can set an approach, which is the most realistic for a given pair.
Considerations
This will present a breaking change to the API. As the feature might be possibly required by more people in the future, I would like to propose to consider, whether this might be supported in future versions.
If yes, I would propose to implement it sooner, so the API breaking changes are made until NT has a beta version.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
RFC: Change the API, so customizable OHLC prices simulation are possible
Context
Currently, there are only 2 OHLC prices simulations possible.
Both presents some limits. e.g. fixed ordering presents a problem during a bracket orders, when bracket orders are in one bar - it might create unrealistically large profits or large loses, if trades are made in one direction with a tight delta.
I propose, that OHLC prices simulation function is fully customizable (possibly with d-rng e.g. as a inherited class member), so the simulation can set an approach, which is the most realistic for a given pair.
Considerations
This will present a breaking change to the API. As the feature might be possibly required by more people in the future, I would like to propose to consider, whether this might be supported in future versions.
If yes, I would propose to implement it sooner, so the API breaking changes are made until NT has a beta version.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: