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)
As you said it yourself, the conclusions in my post matter more than the code section. I don't really see what's missing: They should eliminate the round trip on the order channel. The SIP feeds are fundamentally inaccurate and we don't expect public costs to decrease even if you consolidated all of the exchange feeds.
You can edit and delete own posts within 24 hours, which you did repeatedly. The post in question was edited multiple times, including before you "even left the content untouched".
Let me help you out then, this conclusion is missing:
"If the same quality of delivery is used, it's possible to receive the same packet in Chicago in under 1.6 milliseconds after I receive it in NJ, not 5 milliseconds as Nanex claims."
Under 1.6 milliseconds? Like 0.1 milliseconds for example? You obviously were patently wrong and realized it after you were informed about Nanex's reply regarding the actual distances.
Here is the edit log between my first and final revision:
- Regarding his second suggestion, sure, I absolutely agree. But whoever's under the impression that this will reduce public costs is gravely mistaken. The growing bandwidth requirements is a function of several factors, a few are good reasons, and a few (such as this), are bad (such as liquidity rebates).
+ Regarding his second suggestion, sure, I absolutely agree. But whoever's under the impression that this will reduce public costs is gravely mistaken. The growing bandwidth requirement is a function of several factors, a few are good reasons, and a few (such as liquidity rebates, and this), are bad.
- 2. Lauer was at Allston, a "greybox" shop that did poorly in the past years and therefore had to cut its staff. (Besides, they are a JVM shop, by no means latency-sensitive.) He has absolutely no authority about this matter. The majority of 'mini-crashes' and bottoms are formed by retail (click or electronic) traders and click traders aggressing against low latency electronic traders, e.g. through stop loss orders. I only say "the majority" for political correctness because honestly I don't pay attention to these things and my actual memory of these incidences was that 100% of them were caused by low-frequency traders. Here's an example where a market lost about 4% of its value in an hour where I had to supply liquidity all the way down to the bottom. The pink bar shows the contribution of low latency electronic traders and the two largest bars clearly show that the slow traders were responsible for most of the market damage and imbalance.
+ 2. During the Flash Crash, Lauer was at Allston, a "greybox" shop that did poorly in the past years and therefore had to cut its staff. (Besides, they are a JVM shop, by no means latency-sensitive.) He has absolutely no authority about this matter. The majority of 'mini-crashes' and bottoms are formed by retail (click or electronic) traders and slow traders aggressing against low latency electronic traders, e.g. through stop loss orders. I only say "the majority" for political correctness because honestly I don't pay attention to these things and my actual memory of these incidences was that 100% of them were caused by low-frequency traders. Here's an example where a market lost about 4% of its value in an hour where I had to supply liquidity all the way down to the bottom. The pink bar shows the contribution of low latency electronic traders and the two largest bars clearly show that the slow traders were responsible for most of the market damage and imbalance.
- 3. I believe Direct Edge had made a public statement that they had email evidence of discussions with Bodek about the hide-or-slide order type well in advance.
+ 3. I believe Direct Edge had made a public statement that they had email evidence of discussions with Bodek about the [edit: hide-not-slide] order type well in advance.
Two are grammatical errors (which I pointed out in my edit reasons), and one is a critical typo which I indicated with the words "edit:".
This was a back-of-the-envelope calculation (I said 'it's possible', not that I've tried it myself between Chicago and DC) and you spent 2 pages arguing with me on the basis that you folded a piece of paper. I explained the estimation here:
So I've written several posts about this all over the place but I keep getting questions and PM's so it makes more sense for this to have its own thread.
First, I need to tell you that while I have no problem sharing a great deal, …
But you are exactly right "whatever floats your boat", and for me this is what I wanted and needed, at least for now. Not everyone is competing in the same space. My trade duration is measured in hours to days.