4 ms·

A strange position to take, I'm guessing you've absorbed it from the media somehow. His machine was in the market enough to trade 4000 times a day (I would sug

by gd1 14y ago

A strange position to take, I'm guessing you've absorbed it from the media somehow. His machine was in the market enough to trade 4000 times a day (I would suggest passively, or he would have been eaten by the cost of crossing the spread), so he was basically continuously offering a service to the market - an offer to sell and a bid to buy at the price he thought fair. Do you demand to know what value your local 7-11 provides by selling you milk? The value is that you can buy milk 24 hours a day, so you don't begrudge them the 15c a carton they are making. And they probably charge more than your local supermarket for the convenience too. The dirty thieves.

loup-vaillant 14y ago
I refine my position here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4752742 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4752742 I do get the value of trading, investing, and some form of arbitrage. Heck, I don't have to search for the farm to get my milk. That's a service, and it does deserve a reward. What the author did is a bit different: > Most of the market volume was other bots that would only execute a trade with me if they thought they had some statistical edge. I understood it meant "they would trade with me only if they think I was the sucker". And of course, he would trade with them only if he thinks they were the suckers. It's not providing a service. It's fighting in a zero-sum economy. Now he did say "most of the market volume". So there's a fraction that's not bots, and probably also a smaller fraction that does not even play the zero sum game, but instead does some positive-sum trading with the mostly-zero-sum players. But this interface boundary seems incredibly thin, compared to the internal zero-sum behemoth. That looks like a highly inefficient use of time, energy, and brains. And even then, I'm not sure the zero-sum game provides any service to the rest of the world: zero-sum players base their models on the behaviour of each other, not on the actual performance of companies. That would add no new information to the system. At best, that only amplifies the effect of the few that actually predict company performance. And I doubt it does it well.
- gd1 14y ago
  It doesn't really matter why anyone is in the market. The fact is that they are posting prices to the limit order book, and in doing so providing liquidity and accepting risk and providing a service. The only way the OP could get executed passively is by offering a price equal to or better than the market price, yes? So someone got a better price (or more liquidity at the prevailing price) by him being there. There are really only two actions in a market, providing liquidity (i.e. market-making) or taking liquidity (including arbitrageurs). Stretching the shopkeeper analogy, any time you put a price tag on an item you are taking a risk and exposing yourself. You slap a price on some bananas and then there is a tropical cyclone (it happened in Australia) and the price of bananas doubles. Someone smart swoops in (call them an arbitrageur), grabs your bananas and goes to the till and you legally have to sell them to him even though they're worth double now. You also have inventory risk, if you're holding a lot of bananas out back then there is the chance that they go rotten. Every limit order (an offer to sell, or bid to buy) has an inherent risk that you should expect to be compensated for (or you wouldn't do it), and enhances the market. The more competition amongst people posting prices the better, it just means more liquidity (you can buy or sell as many bananas as you want) and tighter prices. The liquidity taker on the other hand is all about exploiting a misprice. Say, Intel release earnings and are down 10%, but the price of the highly correlated ARM hasn't moved yet, if you are the fastest you can take advantage of some poor person who still wants to buy ARM at the same price as before this information was known. Keep in mind here, a price can move without any trades happening (or goods changing hands). The shopkeepers can whip around and change the price tag on their bananas if they are fast enough before anyone buys them. It is harder to justify the liquidity taker - what marginal advantage is there to having the price of ARM react to that news in 2 milliseconds rather than 20? They force the transmission of information yes, but why is it better to have it happen a bit marginally quicker? On the other hand, how can you have a realtime market without them? It keeps the providers on their toes, and there will always be someone fastest to react. Incidentally, providing liquidity must have been the chief function of the OP's algo - 4000 trades a day doesn't work for a liquidity taker that has to cross the spread. He isn't getting 2000 mis-price signals a day to swing at, good enough to justify crossing the spread. DAX traded 120k contracts yesterday, he would have been averaging 2-3% of daily flow.
  - 14y ago

by gd1 14y ago

loup-vaillant 14y ago

I refine my position here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4752742 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4752742 I do get the value of trading, investing, and some form of arbitrage. Heck, I don't have to search for the farm to get my milk. That's a service, and it does deserve a reward. What the author did is a bit different: > Most of the market volume was other bots that would only execute a trade with me if they thought they had some statistical edge. I understood it meant "they would trade with me only if they think I was the sucker". And of course, he would trade with them only if he thinks they were the suckers. It's not providing a service. It's fighting in a zero-sum economy. Now he did say "most of the market volume". So there's a fraction that's not bots, and probably also a smaller fraction that does not even play the zero sum game, but instead does some positive-sum trading with the mostly-zero-sum players. But this interface boundary seems incredibly thin, compared to the internal zero-sum behemoth. That looks like a highly inefficient use of time, energy, and brains. And even then, I'm not sure the zero-sum game provides any service to the rest of the world: zero-sum players base their models on the behaviour of each other, not on the actual performance of companies. That would add no new information to the system. At best, that only amplifies the effect of the few that actually predict company performance. And I doubt it does it well.

gd1 14y ago
It doesn't really matter why anyone is in the market. The fact is that they are posting prices to the limit order book, and in doing so providing liquidity and accepting risk and providing a service. The only way the OP could get executed passively is by offering a price equal to or better than the market price, yes? So someone got a better price (or more liquidity at the prevailing price) by him being there. There are really only two actions in a market, providing liquidity (i.e. market-making) or taking liquidity (including arbitrageurs). Stretching the shopkeeper analogy, any time you put a price tag on an item you are taking a risk and exposing yourself. You slap a price on some bananas and then there is a tropical cyclone (it happened in Australia) and the price of bananas doubles. Someone smart swoops in (call them an arbitrageur), grabs your bananas and goes to the till and you legally have to sell them to him even though they're worth double now. You also have inventory risk, if you're holding a lot of bananas out back then there is the chance that they go rotten. Every limit order (an offer to sell, or bid to buy) has an inherent risk that you should expect to be compensated for (or you wouldn't do it), and enhances the market. The more competition amongst people posting prices the better, it just means more liquidity (you can buy or sell as many bananas as you want) and tighter prices. The liquidity taker on the other hand is all about exploiting a misprice. Say, Intel release earnings and are down 10%, but the price of the highly correlated ARM hasn't moved yet, if you are the fastest you can take advantage of some poor person who still wants to buy ARM at the same price as before this information was known. Keep in mind here, a price can move without any trades happening (or goods changing hands). The shopkeepers can whip around and change the price tag on their bananas if they are fast enough before anyone buys them. It is harder to justify the liquidity taker - what marginal advantage is there to having the price of ARM react to that news in 2 milliseconds rather than 20? They force the transmission of information yes, but why is it better to have it happen a bit marginally quicker? On the other hand, how can you have a realtime market without them? It keeps the providers on their toes, and there will always be someone fastest to react. Incidentally, providing liquidity must have been the chief function of the OP's algo - 4000 trades a day doesn't work for a liquidity taker that has to cross the spread. He isn't getting 2000 mis-price signals a day to swing at, good enough to justify crossing the spread. DAX traded 120k contracts yesterday, he would have been averaging 2-3% of daily flow.
- 14y ago