|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Tom.. you must be clear for newer traders,,,that this depends on which
markets you are trading.Not all markets have full electronic access yet,
most are still open outcry.
There are alot of traders out there making up the markets. They are not all
S&P Mini
traders. In some of the more exotic markets, a good institutional Futures
Firm with
top notch floor people and good location makes a difference. Trading
electronically
in those markets would just mean going through one more desk. All the
Best, D.B.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Stein <comfut@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: RealTraders Discussion Group <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, May 28, 1999 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: On-Line Trading & Commissions
>"In actuality, your entry is likely to be much worse using a broker, than
>electronic entry. You call the broker, he calls the floor, they signal
>to the pit, the trade occurs, and then the return trip. Versus
>electronic where you have your fill in 2-8 seconds versus 30 sec-2 min
>with a broker. "
>
>Could you, please, follow up with some statistics that verify that a 2-8
>second fill makes you more money in the long run than a 2 minute fill? I
>realize it depends on the type of trading you do, but any short term system
>that I have seen back-tested as to time of fill
>show that once you get your signal, any fill over the next 5 minutes has
>about the same dollar profit outcome over a large sampling. The
explanation
>being that you get as much dollar profit as dollar loss by getting filled
>randomly over the next 5 minutes.
>
>Again, I don't know what your time parameters are, but my guess is that
>anyone who is in a trade for over 30 minutes will find that the fills, even
>themselves out, over time.
>
>If true and I think it is, it means you can cross off speed of execution on
>your anxiety list.
>
>
>Tom
>
|