|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Well, we are back to tick counting.
The number of ticks you get on your machine depends on many factors. The
machine speed, ram etc., the speed of the market and how many symbols
are in you portfolio. Posting your tick count is a waste of time. Your
tick count must be compared not to someone else’s data filtered through
TS but to some reliable reference source such as Quote.com. I spent
most of April on where ticks were being lost in TS and posted the
following to this list (how easly posts disappear into the bowels of
these lists and are forgotten).
> Subject: CL_Best Data Feed, You Already Have It
> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 18:07:37 -0700
> From: Wayne Mathews <wayne@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: code-list <code-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, omega list <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I have made extensive comparisons of missed ticks between charting
> in TS 4 and two charting services, Quote.com and BMI. I used BMI
> cable as the data feed for TS 4. Quote.com is over the Internet. BMI
> charting allows you to see and print Time & Sales. That is, each and
> ever tick (this can not be done in Signal cable but can in Signal
> Online). Quote.com has the same feature. Since BMI charting and TS can
> not run at the same time I used Quote.com as the reference. The numbers
> are per cent of ticks missed as compared to Quote.com. Since it seems
> more ticks will be missed the faster the market is for that stock I have
> listed the seconds per trade in parentheses. These numbers are
> different due to collecting BMI and TS data a few minutes apart
> (closing one charting program and opening the other).
>
> I am listing only part of the results I obtained but the pattern is the
> same as shown below.
(Data taken with 65 symbols in portfolio and 166MHz, 64M, 2.1G HD. My
second machine is 400MHz, 128M, 6.2G HD on which I have TS2000 loaded
and the results with TS2000 are similar)
>
> Stock BMI (sec/trade) TS (sec/trade)
>
> AAPL 1.7% (10.1) 10.3% (17.5)
> AOL 3.9% (3.2) 30% (1.9)
>
> (There were a string of losses for 20 seconds for AOL on BMI and if it
> were not for those the % would be 1%. I look for consistent patterns.).
>
> What the results tell me is that BMI is not the culprit for lost ticks.
> IT IS THE TS 4 SERVER!! REMEMBER, ALL THE TICK RESULTS POSTED ON THE
> LIST ARE READ ON (OR THOUGH) TS. IF THE TS SERVER IS AT FAULT THEN
> COMPARING SATELLITE FEED WITH CABLE WITH FM IS NOT GETTING AT THE
> PROBLEM SINCE ALL THOSE GO THROUGH THE TS SERVER! I really can not
> believe it is that hard for paid, professional programmers to get this
> right. And why does not Omega advise us of these type limitations? Let
> me make it clear -BMI IS AS GOOD A DATA FEED AS WE ARE GOING TO GET FOR
> TS 4.
>
> Wayne Mathews
>
|