|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>So this Ready Killowatt problem has pointed out an achillis
heal in delivery of cboe data to the end user. Where are the circuit
breakers for faulty information? Where is the management that should have
addressed these issues of power backup and data integrity? The hardware
and software technology has been here for years to do so and we know the money
is there for sure. Management at CBOE and PC Quote need to address the
problem and not point fingers. They should have had the foresight to
design and implement such technology with redundancy years ago. I have no
grand illusion that it will be addressed in my lifetime.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>BobR</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
THE DOCTOR
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:bobrabcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"; title=bobrabcd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>ROBERT
ROESKE</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>RealTraders</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, August 12, 1999 1:06
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: GEN - cboe</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Just an FYI .... cboe does do the actual calculation for
VIX. PC Quote does the calculation and sends it out over OPRA. So
all of Chicago could go dark ..... as long as PC Quote wants to send data you
could get a VIX. Without any OEX puts and calls trading, the
disseminated number would be bogus.
<P>ROBERT ROESKE wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE="CITE">
<STYLE></STYLE>
<FONT size=-1>That's interesting, cboe shuts down, but VIX keeps updating
and my calls have doubled when the oex went sideways. What a wonderful
post eclipse phenonenon!</FONT> <FONT
size=-1>BR</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Thu Aug 12 18:10:48 1999
Return-Path: <owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from ml.nw.verio.net (ml.nw.verio.net [204.202.220.47])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA26786
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 18:09:14 -0700
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by ml.nw.verio.net (970819888) id RAA00046
for realtraders-sendemout; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:03:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.nwnet.net (mail1.nwnet.net [192.220.251.8])
by ml.nw.verio.net (970819888) with ESMTP id RAA00042
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15])
by mail1.nwnet.net (970819888) with ESMTP id RAA12950
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 17:03:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from smap@xxxxxxxxx)
by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
id TAA18403 for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:03:13 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from dsm-ia2-08.ix.netcom.com(205.184.166.72) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
id rma018371; Thu Aug 12 19:02:45 1999
Message-ID: <000701bee520$79ac4600$48a6b8cd@xxx>
From: "Ron Warshawsky" <rwarsh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: GEN: Money Management Strategy question
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:12:02 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01BEE4F6.8EE7DB80"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Status:
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>RTs,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2> Can you please, help me with this
question:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>If, assume, that exists 3 below mentioned
trading vehicles:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>First : 10% monthly return,
guaranteed </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Second : 50% monthly return, has probability to lose 50%
of investment value</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Third : 100% monthly return has
probability to lose 100% of investment value</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Then, what will be the best (in %) portfolio
allocation and in how trading profits has to be redistributed?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Thanking in advance,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> Ron Warshawsky</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Thu Aug 12 20:26:47 1999
Return-Path: <owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from ml.nw.verio.net (ml.nw.verio.net [204.202.220.47])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id UAA28768
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 20:26:24 -0700
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by ml.nw.verio.net (970819888) id TAA00789
for realtraders-sendemout; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.nwnet.net (mail1.nwnet.net [192.220.251.8])
by ml.nw.verio.net (970819888) with ESMTP id TAA00775
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out5.ibm.net (out5.ibm.net [165.87.194.243])
by mail1.nwnet.net (970819888) with ESMTP id TAA14858
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from doctor4u.com (slip-32-100-197-105.ca.us.ibm.net [32.100.197.105]) by out5.ibm.net (8.8.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA81340; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 02:16:16 GMT
Message-ID: <37B36482.5E0A8D82@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 19:19:15 -0500
From: THE DOCTOR <droex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: droex@xxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.06 [en] (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: kohath <kohath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: Dick Crotinger <dangle@xxxxxxx>, realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: OPTN: How can they do that?
References: <026f01bee502$b0967be0$128d0b3f@xxxxxx> <37B32875.2E929767@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <00a301bee52c$befe2140$af4a03cf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Status:
If your broker admitted it was a bad fill why did he accept it? He has a
responsibility to you. Floor culture is such that brokers NEVER make mistakes.
A good broker would not trade with whoever filled the order ever again. There
is a crowd of folks who trade and a good broker works the crowd to their
customers advantage. If your broker didn't he in fact may just be trying to
shift responsibility. If they a get a fill and know it is bad ... what are they
doing for a living? There isn't a specialist trading the product... there is a
crowd of people competeing...if your broker didn't get them to compete and you
paid for their lack of effort then you really out to consider the quality of
that relationship.
In my experience ... 9 times out of 10 bad fills are a result of lazy brokers.
kohath wrote:
> If there are no extraordinary circumstances then you got a bad fill and
> your broker should
> either get it corrected or make good on it themselves.
>
> You may as well by a lottery ticket if you are hoping for them to give your
> money back.
> I had a bad fill about a year ago, not 1/16 but $1.5, (on a market order)
> and my broker agreed that it was a bad fill. We both had the data for the
> time of the fill. Call CBOE, what do you think they said, sorry, here's
> your money, hardly, Sorry, the market was at XX and there is nothing we can
> do about it, it was a fast market. Yes, very fast, for them, probably
> millions made that afternoon in a few hours off suckers like me (and you!).
> That is why I never use market orders. Talk to the woman who placed two or
> three trades on an IPO in the morning, wanting to go only about $3,000,
> ended up $250,000 in debt. That's what happens when you do not use limit
> orders.
>
> kohath
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: THE DOCTOR <droex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: Dick Crotinger <dangle@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, August 12, 1999 3:03 PM
> Subject: Re: OPTN: How can they do that?
>
> > Market or marketable limit is assured a 20 up market. If the
> circumstances are
> > as you describe and the option is a single list you are entitled to a fill
> at
> > 5/8 and your broker should go back into the crowd and claim it. However
> having
> > said that ...IN ALMOST EVERY CASE ... there is something more to the
> story.
> > Have you queried your broker?
> >
> > Is it possible that because of today's power problems your order was
> either
> > rerouted or handled manually instead of electronically. If there are no
> > extraordinary circumstances then you got a bad fill and your broker should
> > either get it corrected or make good on it themselves. The fact that an
> option
> > is thing is irrelevant for a small order. The machines are set at 20
> contracts
> > on all the exchanges.
> >
> > Dick Crotinger wrote:
> >
> > > I just closed a trade in an equity option, OILHV, at 1515 EST. My
> > > screen (DTN) showed the BID at 5/8, which had fluctuated at 5/8 - 11/16
> most
> > > of the afternoon. 95 contracts traded so far. I felt the stock was
> > > correcting and decided to close my long trade in the call option. The
> > > option suddenly dipped to 9/16 bid five minutes AFTER placing my Dreyfus
> > > order, which is where I was then filled. Dreyfus fills this kind of
> trade
> > > all the time almost immediately (~30 seconds)... this one took five
> minutes.
> > > The option then IMMEDIATELY went back to 5/8 bid. The option during the
> > > last 15 minutes prior to the close started bidding at 9/16.
> > >
> > > I KNOW this is a thinly traded option (948 contracts)(but what is
> > > "thinly?"). I KNOW that a market order is for he who wants an absolute
> > > unconditional exit... that's why I use it when I want to pull a trade.
> (My
> > > entries are limits). But this pisses me off. The trade size was 10
> > > contracts, and I was under the impression that a market order to the bid
> or
> > > ask is GUARANTEED at least a 30-contract fill. Why did this trade go a
> > > notch lower, to the "screw-em" point? HOW CAN THEY DO THAT?
> > >
> > > This is not a big financial deal... he got the teenie and I didn't.
> But
> > > I have to believe that CBOT et al are not happy with the recent several
> > > years reduction in participation by "the public." Well, it's because of
> > > this kind of stuff. Most of the time, I'm happy with my 10-second fills
> > > using the above approach, but once in a while this happens...
> > >
> > > Doc... anybody... is this the only way to do this kind of trading? Why
> > > don't market orders get filled at the market?
> > >
> > > Dick Crotinger
> >
> >
|