Best Thread Capital Spreads

[tar]

U r back to talk about latency , i told u forget about latency it is rare , also the number of traders who benefit from such latency issues is handful , SB firms can solve the problem by improving their platforms and data feed , SB firms will not go bust because of those few winners , losers money will offset winners profits ...

 

[chezlaw]

U r back to talk about latency , i told u forget about latency it is rare , also the number of traders who benefit from such latency issues is handful , SB firms can solve the problem by improving their platforms and data feed , SB firms will not go bust because of those few winners , losers money will offset winners profits ...

Then all business is profitable and can easily be made riskless

Why do they want to discriminate again ...

and why should we care, if some SB firm doesn't want to make riskless profits then that's their problem..

 

[tar]

Then all business is profitable and can easily be made riskless

Why do they want to discriminate again ...

and why should we care, if some SB firm doesn't want to make riskless profits then that's their problem..

Who said this ?! check CMC results , i posted the results few days ago , they made a huge revenue , but they made a loss after expenses and exceptional items ... etc . It is not riskless ...

The problem is some SB firms put profitable scalpers and daytraders on manual dealing because ( maybe ) i repeat maybe those traders take advantage of what they call ( latency issues ) , for God sake fix your data feed , it is only an excuse ...

 

[chezlaw]

if they can hedge it at a profit then its profitable and can be made riskless. I can't believe anyone wants to disagree with that. A company could still go bust if they don't meet their overheads but that's no reason to turn away extra profitable riskless business.

and now you're mentioning network latency. In this thread I sometimes fell like I'm argueing with billy bunter - I didn't eat the buns and in any case they were stale.

 

[tar]

the discussion is about should SB firms shut down winners because they will go bust if they didnt do so ? i tell u they will not go bust , infact they will go bust if they keep playing silly games ...

 

[Splitlink]

the discussion is about should SB firms shut down winners because they will go bust if they didnt do so ? i tell u they will not go bust , infact they will go bust if they keep playing silly games ...

I agree. They have limits in their rules. That, I suppose, is their protection. The rest, as professionals, they know is simple statistics. 80% of traders lose money. Simon said that.

 

[chezlaw]

the discussion is about should SB firms shut down winners because they will go bust if they didnt do so ? i tell u they will not go bust , infact they will go bust if they keep playing silly games ...

Okay so you're saying they're making a mistake when they discriminate against some traders because they are turning away profitable business.

I'd like to believe that's the case. Maybe it is the case but it doesn't seem the consensus view amongst posters or SB companies.

If they are just making a mistake then we should be pretty relaxed about it, competition will see them off and we can go to the better run companies.

 

[chezlaw]

I agree. They have limits in their rules. That, I suppose, is their protection. The rest, as professionals, they know is simple statistics. 80% of traders lose money. Simon said that.

We can all find trading stragies that win 80% of the time, most of those stragies will bust us darn quick

 

[tar]

Okay so you're saying they're making a mistake when they discriminate against some traders because they are turning away profitable business.

I'd like to believe that's the case. Maybe it is the case but it doesn't seem the consensus view amongst posters or SB companies.

If they are just making a mistake then we should be pretty relaxed about it, competition will see them off and we can go to the better run companies.

yeah i am relaxed about this , this will fire up the competition between SB firms ...

 

[gle101]

Most daytraders trade on price action and volatility. Yes, they look at the real market price feed, because this is where the market is heading. How many traders look only for network latency, extremely few I would say. Why is this, simply because it is so rare and it takes a lot of effort monitoring. The easiest way to solve the latency issue is to give a re-quote or a 'price no longer valid message' (what they are in fact already practice excessively). Is there any network latency trading DMA, of course, you will not get filled, or there will be some slippage, depending on what kind of order you have. The latency issue counts for such a small percentage (probably per thousand) that it does not justify Simon's standpoint on this issue, or the number of traders being flagged and categorized. furthermore, it is absurd to transfer the responsibility and the validity of a price quote to the client.

 

[chezlaw]

How many traders look only for network latency, extremely few I would say. Why is this, simply because it is so rare and it takes a lot of effort monitoring. The easiest way to solve the latency issue is to give a re-quote or a 'price no longer valid message' (what they are in fact already practice excessively). Is there any network latency trading DMA, of course, you will not get filled, or there will be some slippage, depending on what kind of order you have. The latency issue counts for such a small percentage (probably per thousand) that it does not justify Simon's standpoint on this issue, or the number of traders being flagged and categorized. furthermore, it is absurd to transfer the responsibility and the validity of a price quote to the client.

Tthe difficulty and number able to do it are largely irrelevent. The only thing that really matters is scalability. Again its not only network latency, any unhedgable method that beats the SB firm will bust them if allowed.

If tar is right, then there are no unhedgable profitable methods so that's fine. I guess its more complicated than that and to prevent such stratagies requires a large spread but its only a guess, generally I've assumed as they want to ban some people its becasue they can't avoid losing to them.

In all cases it would just be better if SB firms could just decide who they wanted as customers.

 

[gle101]

Tthe difficulty and number able to do it are largely irrelevent. The only thing that really matters is scalability. Again its not only network latency, any unhedgable method that beats the SB firm will bust them if allowed.

If tar is right, then there are no unhedgable profitable methods so that's fine. I guess its more complicated than that and to prevent such stratagies requires a large spread but its only a guess, generally I've assumed as they want to ban some people its becasue they can't avoid losing to them.

In all cases it would just be better if SB firms could just decide who they wanted as customers.

Is it, I think you have to look over your math, to more people who have access will affect the statistical outcome. So you are also targeting short term traders know, now that the latency issue is not valid anymore?

 

[tar]

Tthe difficulty and number able to do it are largely irrelevent. The only thing that really matters is scalability. Again its not only network latency, any unhedgable method that beats the SB firm will bust them if allowed.

If tar is right, then there are no unhedgable profitable methods so that's fine. I guess its more complicated than that and to prevent such stratagies requires a large spread but its only a guess, generally I've assumed as they want to ban some people its becasue they can't avoid losing to them.

In all cases it would just be better if SB firms could just decide who they wanted as customers.

even scalping is headgable , simply if you allow scalping longs will offset shorts and u as a SB firm will gain the spread and if they saw more longs then the SB firm can buy the market , and if they saw more shorts they sell the market , and also dont forget most of those scalpers will lose eventually ...
If the SB firm has instant execution for bets with normal size , it will gain more customers , but if the SB firm keep giving error msgs and delayed execution simply it will lose customers

 

[chezlaw]

Is it, I think you have to look over your math, to more people who have access will affect the statistical outcome. So you are also targeting short term traders know, now that the latency issue is not valid anymore?

I'm not targeting anyone. We're talking about any strategies that beat the SB firm out of money or as Tar points out any strategy that the SB firm thinks beats them out of money.

You can have a go at my knowledge of markets f you like but have a go at my maths and its fighting talk Its trivially true that any profitable method is only limited by its scalability.

 

[chezlaw]

even scalping is headgable , simply if you allow scalping longs will offset shorts and u as a SB firm will gain the spread and if they saw more longs then the SB firm can buy the market , and if they saw more shorts they sell the market , and also dont forget most of those scalpers will lose eventually ...
If the SB firm has instant execution for bets with normal size , it will gain more customers , but if the SB firm keep giving error msgs and delayed execution simply it will lose customers

Its the hedging to market that ultimately matters. Generally any method is hedgable at a profit if the spread is large enough. Forcing SB firms to not discriminate means they have to charge everyone large enough spreads to allow hedging of the most expert scalpers etc.

 

[gle101]

I'm not targeting anyone. We're talking about any strategies that beat the SB firm out of money or as Tar points out any strategy that the SB firm thinks beats them out of money.

You can have a go at my knowledge of markets f you like but have a go at my maths and its fighting talk Its trivially true that any profitable method is only limited by its scalability.

cheslaw, you have to look at facts presented. Not just keep "ranting" for the sake of winning an argument. Scalability is not a problem, they will spot you immediately, and there is also a limit to the stake you can bet.

In fact I find it refreshing that somebody else is fighting the SB battle.

 

[tar]

Its the hedging to market that ultimately matters. Generally any method is hedgable at a profit if the spread is large enough. Forcing SB firms to not discriminate means they have to charge everyone large enough spreads to allow hedging of the most expert scalpers etc.

U cant hedge every position , most of your clients longs will offset shorts , SB firms is like scalpers who buy at the bid and sell at the offer , no need to charge a larger spread ...

 

[chezlaw]

cheslaw, you have to look at facts presented. Not just keep "ranting" for the sake of winning an argument. Scalability is not a problem, they will spot you immediately, and there is also a limit to the stake you can bet.

In fact I find it refreshing that somebody else is fighting the SB battle.

No good spotting you if they're not allowed to discriminate - that's the whole point.

Limits to stakes obviously won't help - what would you do when you want to scale up some more but you've reached your limit?

 

[chezlaw]

U cant hedge every position , most of your clients longs will offset shorts

decreasingly true as the winners scale up their bets.

 

[gle101]

No good spotting you if they're not allowed to discriminate - that's the whole point.

Limits to stakes obviously won't help - what would you do when you want to scale up some more but you've reached your limit?

They will also spot you immediately if you repeatedly bet high stake bets.