Scaling in - multiple entry, single exit

[heech]

Hi there,

I just want to make sure this approach for scaling into an order is supported (recommended):

EnterLong(my_bar, 50, "ORDER");
... later on...
EnterLong(my_bar, 60, "ORDER");

Will I be okay if I ultimately exit with:
ExitLong(my_bar, 110, "EXIT_ORDER", "ORDER");

Would you expect anything to break? I have EntriesPerDirection set very high (100), and UniqueEntries enabled.

Note that I do have the same instrument on different bars... so the exit->entry tracking really does need to match.

Thanks.

[roonius]

Hi there,

I just want to make sure this approach for scaling into an order is supported (recommended):

EnterLong(my_bar, 50, "ORDER");
... later on...
EnterLong(my_bar, 60, "ORDER");

Will I be okay if I ultimately exit with:
ExitLong(my_bar, 110, "EXIT_ORDER", "ORDER");

Would you expect anything to break? I have EntriesPerDirection set very high (100), and UniqueEntries enabled.

Note that I do have the same instrument on different bars... so the exit->entry tracking really does need to match.

Thanks.

I think it should work.
Simple ExitLong() would close any open long position.

[heech]

I think it should work.
Simple ExitLong() would close any open long position.

Well, I definitely want to avoid that.

At the point this is happening, I will have likely ~160 bars, for ~80 instruments... (some of which will be duplicate instruments). And I am tracking entry/exit separately for each.

[NinjaTrader_Bertrand]

heech, I'm not sure I follow, which part are you concerned about? If you set EntriesPerDirection this high, you want to keep track of accumulated quantity and change this accordingly.

[heech]

Hi,

In the past, I've only had one matching enter for every exit. I assumed that's how it had to be... that they all had to correspond.

Now that I'm looking at other options... I just want to make sure I'm using it correctly, if:

- I can use the same order name on multiple entries, at the same time.
- I can have multiple exits (each only exiting part of the position) using the same order name.

[NinjaTrader_Bertrand]

heech, thanks for clarifying - I then suggest reviewing those reference samples -

http://www.ninjatrader-support2.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3225

http://www.ninjatrader-support2.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3751

Generally speaking you need to scale in to scale out.

[heech]

heech, thanks for clarifying - I then suggest reviewing those reference samples -

http://www.ninjatrader-support2.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3225

http://www.ninjatrader-support2.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3751

Generally speaking you need to scale in to scale out.

Hi,

This actually introduces more questions, didn't really answer mine. I'm looking specifically at the second sample, which talks about scaling in. One key difference: they're relying on stops/profit targets, which I am *not* using. I control enter/exit explicitly.

Here's the part that concerns me:

/* Enters two long positions.
We submit two orders to allow us to be able to scale out half of the position at a time in the future.
With individual entry names we can differentiate between the first half and the second half of our long position.
This lets us place a Profit Target order only for the first half and Trail Stops for both. */
EnterLong("Long 1a");
EnterLong("Long 1b");

Does this suggest that I can't have both EnterLong() calls with the same entry()? Or that I can't exit *part* of a position? Or is he only using two different entry names here because he's using different profit target/trail stops?

[NinjaTrader_JoshP]

Should not use the same signal name for different simultaneous entries. May work under simple scenarios of just one set of positions, but for your needs likely will not.

[heech]

Should not use the same signal name for different simultaneous entries. May work under simple scenarios of just one set of positions, but for your needs likely will not.

Thanks Josh. I've been having backtests freeze up and die on me, and this is probably why.

Just to clarify though... I'm not looking to enter truly "simultaneously". Gosh, these words are confusing. I will be entering *concurrently*...

ie, at 7:00 AM, EnterLong(10, "foo");
at 8:00 AM, EnterLong(10, "foo");

... does that change your answer at all?

[NinjaTrader_JoshP]

Concurrent may be a better term. Please use separate signal names.

[heech]

Concurrent may be a better term. Please use separate signal names.

The problem with using separate signal names, is how do I exit all of them simultaneously. (Truly simultaneously this time, not concurrently.)

Will I have to track the quantity associated with each entry, and then use a separate matching exit?

[NinjaTrader_JoshP]

ExitLong("longa");
ExitLong("longb");