Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
What is hilarious here ?
What @Fat Tails is writing is that the best delay might be 67ms + few ms for each router (15 hops for me from France for example). No QoS involved here, 67ms + (hops count * 1.5ms) is maybe the best you can have, whatever the protocol used.
I don't see what's wrong here...
In his original post @Jura asked whether Zenfire had dedicated European servers. My broker has a dedicated server in Switzerland, which is connected to the US. In the past this connection has proven to be faster and more reliable than routing my orders directly to the US server of the broker via my Internet provider(s).
But even with a dedicated connection, you will not be able to reduce latency below 100 ms. With my calculation, I only wanted to show that in the best of all worlds you would still have something like 80+ ms, if you are located in Europe.
Probably not worth looking for an expensive solution, as you will still be last in the line for any high frequency approach. And never try to use satellite connections, the distance and the latency will increase 5 to 10-fold, as those satellites are far away.
what is hilarious is all the "science" behind it, as if it really makes that much of a difference, that he is quoting... I never said that something was wrong, let's not put words into my statement, but that it was hilarious(as in very funny)... as in, am cracking up, lmao because FT always explains things in ways that sounds so convoluted when at times it makes little to no difference..
Actually it's nice to see the science sometimes, and as for making little or no difference, that's not true either since the distance and the speed of light are the two most important factors in the transatlantic ping time.
I think that it makes a difference. This thread is about the advantages of having a machine in Chicago. I do not need it, because I am not a high frequency trader using market orders. But @liquidcci showed that he could improve his performance by reducing latency.
With my little calculation I just wanted to point out that distance and speed of light are the main limiting factors for latency. I also believe that not all European traders were aware of this, and some had the illusion that they could reduce the latency by changing providers or connecting to a dedicated server. Albeit this is physically impossible.
Conclusion: If your trading approach depends on rapid fills for market orders on an exchange located in Chicago, you cannot do that from a trading PC located in Europe, Singapore or India. Of course it makes little difference, whether the ping is 80, 200 or 400 ms.
In my opinion a server in Chicago is well worth it for anyone who has an automated system that trades futures. My system is not high frequency but has a clear benefit on fills even using limit orders.
The latency is just one advantage. Redundant internet connections and redundant power are also some great advantages. While not impossible to get on a home system will not be at the same level. The thought of holding hundreds of thousands of dollars in futures contracts with Time Warner cable as my home internet connection now puts me in a cold sweat just thinking about it. Did it for years what the heck was I thinking.
Also the power in my home has gone out twice since I moved to server in Chicago but my auto system just kept purring along. Gives me warm fuzzies when that happens.
"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
My calculation clearly referred to a ping, which travels from the Netherlands to Chicago and back. If you divide the 67 seconds by 2, you will get 33.5 seconds for a one-way trip.
As I can see from the picture, a signal takes 42.0 seconds from London to Chicago to travel via Quant Link. This is not slightly better, but comes close to the theoretical value which I had estimated.
The point is that my calculation was based on a round trip, while the picture shows one-way only.
@Fat Tails, let us know when you release your new indicator -- called "Faster Than Light".
FWIW, I've been using @sam028's VPS service for many months now and it's been 100% perfect. I do all my trading on that system and it works great for my needs.