|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Gary Fritz wrote:
> It certainly does. The user interface looks 100x better than LEO's.
> It looks like you can create common "canned" orders for fast
> execution, see a summary of your orders (which ones were filled, at
> what price, which ones are open, which ones were cancelled), etc.,
> and all the other things you'd want to be able to do but that LEO
> doesn't support.
>
Beware of order entry systems that use your web browser for an
interface. Yes . . . they look better and SEEM to provide "canned"
orders for fast execution, but they are limited by your browser's ability
to switch between screens and reload and are slower than LEO. I have
used both and LEO is by far the fastest. Depends on what you are
trading, I guess, but when I want to send an order to the S&P pit, I do
not want to go through confirmation screens to do it. I guess that you
can say this makes LEO error prone, since it does not take you to a
confirmation screen before sending the order, but it won't do anything
that you have not told it to do.
LEO will also print confirmation slips on your printer instantly. The
browser-based systems do not do this that I am aware of.
> I've done programming and UI design for many years. In my NSHO I
> think LEO is a piece of trash, as far as the user interface is
> concerned. It's an error-prone order entry system, it does not
> provide the obvious features that you'd want in an electronic order
> entry system, and when it *does* provide information it's in arcane
> formats or separate pages so you can't get a good quick grasp of your
> situation.
> (E.g. there is one page of "orders" -- ALL orders,
I don't know what version of LEO that you saw, but believe that this is
not the case now. If you have traded for long, you should have no
problem knowing what your position is, regardless of what system you are
using. The real problem here is slow fill confirmation. In that case,
you will definitely not know what your market position is. The only
system that I know of with consistent fast fill confirmations is
Timberhill.
> FTG also claims to have a higher reliability implementation due to
> redundant systems -- e.g. if TOPS/CUBS goes down, supposedly they
> have a backup system to switch to. Don't ask me if that's possible
> or true, but that's what they claim. That would be VERY nice.
>
All of these systems have the same backup system . . . the order is
printed at the desk at the edge of the pit when TOPS is down and the
fills are hand entered when CUBS is down. The only exception to this is
the Timberhill system.
IMHO the Timberhill system is by far the best. Fills are always reported
back in seconds and theirs is the only one that is not dependent on
CUBS. The interface is slicker, faster, and made for trading. The other
systems are all just built on the same shaky foundation . . . TOPS and
CUBS.
Regards,
Jack
|