|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
>>And your grammer example is weak.<<
Just an expression of my dismay toward continual conspiracy theorists.....
>>Hope I'm wrong.<<
So do I.
either way happy trading and Merry X-mas Phil.
mike ball
----- Original Message ----
From: Phil Bailey <baileyp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: mike ball <thinkpad600e@xxxxxxxxx>; Chris Cheatham <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Omega List <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 5:48:33 PM
Subject: RE: CME Tick Aggregation
Mike,
I agree with you on reducing or filtering ticks to eliminate seemingly
Bottlenecks from lack of server support (in theory).
IB does this and they are about 1/6 of tics which may become the standard
(so IB will become 1/36?).
I actually like IB tic chart characteristics due to being smoother.
But the infrequent spike occurance will be offset by constant
innefficiencies of data representations.
CME enjoyed this spike innefficiency and if they were doing well from it,
There would be no change (I bet their switch boards light up though). They
are doing this
Change for a profit motive all for a seemingly justification of customer
satisfaction (shadowy terrorists? see the connection, ha-ha).
My logic is if they are doing all the business, then why don't they buy dirt
cheap servers to
Match the demand since their fixed commission rates have quadruppled from
volume?
Because they make more profit being innefficient. In effect, they are saying
since
We are doing so much business, we will reduce your market visibility, we
will save money, filter your data,
And then make you think we are doing you a favor. Oh boy, another broker
excuse.
Every bucket shop in between your connection and theirs have
Floor traders holidays where they fuzz/block the data and make big profits.
But the technology
Is here to do otherwise, and its not 1975 so there really is no need for the
disruption you
Assume is 'natural law' during spikes. I assume most of that is artificial
as well as
it will not disappear irreguardless of what they do or how much money they
save by reducing visibility/service.
(i.e. Esignals 45 minute data random walk FOMC day and then switch to their
affiliate random walking for 45 minutes:
They don't even BOTHER to make it look random or realistic).
Nothing we can do either way, but I'm not going to smile while they pat me
on the head like a dog.
Again, I'd whole heartedly agree if I thought they were reducing transaction
steps, but until I see otherwise,
I will assume they are manipulating data and ADDING transactions for the
profit motive.
And your grammer example is weak.
Hope I'm wrong.
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mike ball [mailto:thinkpad600e@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 7:48 PM
> To: Phil Bailey; Chris Cheatham; Omega List
> Subject: Re: CME Tick Aggregation
>
> >>Tic charts may have just become obsolete.<< WTF???????????
>
> Phil, when has it ever mattered the actual quantity of Tick
> Bars that one receives during the trading session?
>
> So long as the price conveyed within a set metric,
> 5-tick,20-tick,100-tick and so on is being counted within
> that operational definition, then it's business as usual.
>
> I'd wish before the hysteria sets in that more of us would
> understand the current way the data is being piped from the
> CME's transaction servers through to the various data vendors
> who then in turn sift that data as well...
>
> Faster price matching and less bandwidth being chewed up on
> "excess" and perhaps non-essential breakdown of incremental
> trade data to me is a good thing.
> As an intraday trader that has traded electronically for
> years now, both at home and in the Prop office, it is
> frustrating as hell that even with direct lines to the
> exchange at the trading office, when massive volatility hits
> and the CME's servers become inundated with trade volume,
> having to spit out inefficient trade data on top of providing
> me with latent data in the form of "hiccups" is something
> that I can do completely without.
> Hopefully, this will be a step in the right direction in
> terms of cutting some "fat" out of the equation.
>
> Think of it as using a contraction as opposed to labeling
> sentence structure with the entire subject/verb spelled out.
>
> At any rate, the tick data we've all been using for years has
> never been more than a parallax view of the true market trades.
>
> Mike Ball
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Phil Bailey <baileyp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Chris Cheatham <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Omega List
> <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 3:40:20 PM
> Subject: RE: CME Tick Aggregation
>
>
> Looks like they are trying to increase profit multiple times.
> They now can 'delay' quotes until the bucket (as in 'bucket
> shop') is filled.
> Tic charts may have just become obsolete.
>
> On FOMC day, Esignal gave random quotes from 1:15pm to
> 2:00pm. Then their affiliate they own, Futures Source, went
> random and Esignal corrected until close.
> If George Bush can do whatever he wants, I guess big money
> everywhere will start doing the same while he's still in
> power. Its all in the name of invisible terrorists.
> What a scam, the real terrorists are raping America's economy.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Cheatham [mailto:chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 8:26 AM
> > To: Omega List
> > Subject: CME Tick Aggregation
> >
> > Anyone know what to expect from the new CME tick aggregation?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > http://www.cme.com/trading/get/sup/glxnews2825.html#M6
> >
>
|