Quote from: nmersulypnem on February 10, 2014, 12:14:48 AM

Quote from: oyvinds on February 10, 2014, 12:10:37 AM

Quote from: cw92 on February 09, 2014, 11:55:16 PM

I understand the logic behind the policy change to prevent fake walls coming from small balances, but I think it's a serious problem that traders are now unable to place orders to close out positions if the orders theoretically exceed the balance available. To clarify, say I'm short 20 btc and my margin balance is low, I can no longer place a 20 btc buy order at a lower price due to the balance requirements; this makes no sense because the entire point of the order is the cover my short and replenish the balance. It can't be that traders cannot preemptively place orders to close out their existing positions. Thoughts?

If we are short then we should at minimum be able to place buy orders for *2x* the amount we are short. Say I'm short 20 BTC: I would then like to be able to cover my short and turn long, i.e buy 40 BTC. This is specially useful in volatile times.

+1

2x sounds like a reasonable compromise.

'+1. The engine should never deny placing and executing an order that would decrease the absolute size of the overall position. I've had my (admittedly lousy) bots fail to get out because im trying to turn a -10.8 position into a +0.2, having to make sure to first execute to something like -0.0001 and then adding longs if I wish. Combine this with the fact that the API call to place multiple orders will not process the rest of the orders when that happens it makes for increasingly complicated order placing logic.

It would be very nice if this area could be improved on, meanwhile I'll get back to actually putting some error processing into my scripts