Jack Hughes
Established member
- Messages
- 623
- Likes
- 25
Whatever Simon says, I doubt it's possible to beat any SB by trading on true latency. And if you could, it would be up to them to speed up their systems, not bleat about it being 'unfair'.
Best Thread Capital Spreads
Whatever Simon says, I doubt it's possible to beat any SB by trading on true latency. And if you could, it would be up to them to speed up their systems, not bleat about it being 'unfair'.
Yes it works both ways and if we don't have better information it would even out. However people who could get info and act fast enough would bust the BB company so inevitably the SB firms will protect themseleves.
Seems to me that the sensible approach to this is to recognise that there's simply no way SB firms can exist and allow people to trade who systematically beat the SB firm our of money (via network latency or any other way). If we want to win anything but chump change at SB then it has to be with methods that allow the SB firm to take their cut.
What information are you referring to, beats me, inside information or macro reports leakage is what first comes in mind. This kind of inside information is hard for SB to protect against (they will probably hedge the position anyway), other than to be aware of exceptional high stake bets. Please do not refer to network latency again.
Last edited:
This was specifcally about info that the price has changed.
Well, not much of an answer there.
What more do you want?
M&S futures go up and before SB firm can respond to the price change you buy.
Every sane SB trader look at the real market movement and react on that legal obtained information. SB offer a price, you buy on the quote given, this is the natural interaction between SB and client.
of course.
I'm not why there's so much dancing about the point.
If there are people who could legally get price change information and act on it faster than the SB firms can respond then can you not see that the SB firm would go bust if it didn't take counter-measures.
The same is true for any method that systematically beats the SB firm out of money.
and it then follows that a robust SB industry cannot exist if they don't prevent methods that systematically beats them out of money
Does that really happen? I keep an eye on prices that interest me between my broker and my SB firm. I have found nothing there, as far as price movement is concerned. The odd company might be possible but you, also, have to be watching that one.
consider it from the other side. Suppose you were an SB firm and had a customer who was winning and regularly bet just before the market moved in their direction. How long would it have to go on for before you took action?
Exactly my point. I have been comparing the futures with SB price feed for 5 years now, and in recent years found nothing. The first years there might be a chance of taking advantage of a lagging price feed. Today, this is hardly the case, with sophisticated high tech platform systems this has almost vanished to zero. This network latency ghost is being used by some SB firms for their own purpose of restricting, categorizing and discriminating traders.
Well, if your input price don't match that of the SB price feed, fine, re-quote or price no longer valid is on it place. Absolutely no cause for flagging and categorizing a client.
The network latency point is just a special case of the general point.
why would they want to discrimante or restrict any traders?
Jack Hughes
Established member
- Messages
- 623
- Likes
- 25
gle's right. Of course they want to discriminate against or restrict some traders. They'd be mad if they didn't!
Longer term traders are generally no threat because the SB co can reject, requote or accept and hedge, if necessary (though probably not as often as you think, which is why they really want typical clients who close winners early and let losers run, and eventually lose the lot). They might possibly even mirror a position if they know that a client is consistently profitable.
On the other hand, shorter term traders are just a nuisance and a risk, even if they tend to be betting on markets that automatically self hedge. Hence the 'latency' excuse, because they aren't allowed just to say, 'Sorry, we want you to go away because you might cost us money.'
That's exactly what I'm pointing out.
If they didn/'t discrimnate against traders who cost them money then they will go bust. If we want a robust SB industry we should all want them to maake money.
Blame silly rules then. If we want a robust SB industry then it has to be allowed to make profits and so turn away traders who systematically beat them.
Very dangerous remark I must say. Discriminating clients (categorizing) is not allowed according the MiFID. In the name of latency, SB firm can do almost anything in order to restrict you from getting in or closing a trade. Many traders are being unjustified flagged, when they are just trading in line of the real market movement.
Seems to be missing the point again.
A robust SB industry can only exist if its profitable. If the rules prevent that legitimately then SB firms will go bust, break the rules, or charge so much spread that no-one can win. Stupid rules have bad consequences.
I wonder why anyone thinks SB firms should have to accept loss making business. Don't say its because of the rules, its the rules I'm questioning.
In society you are not allowed to brake the law, even in the name of profitability.
oh you are just saying its because of the rulesIn society you are not allowed to brake the law, even in the name of profitability.
