Search results

Ok, I got you. You're referring to internalization. All US option exchanges support one form of that. Call it PIP, auction, QCC, Customer Cross, PIM, etc. It's not up to the exchange but to the broker. Using your example, if your broker internalizes your order, it doesn't really matter which...

If the NBBO has a wide bid-offer spread, then whatever option exchange you'll trade at, you'll get the same fill price. If you send your order at BOX and BOX is not at NBBO but CBOE is, then your order will be routed to CBOE by BOX and you'll get the CBOE price (NBBO). You simply can't get a...

I don't think PFOF leads to suboptimal execution. In general, it's mostly transparent for the retail trader. A lots of retail brokers are using PFOF (one way of another), more than what retail traders think.

PFOF is the real deal. Retail order flow has a great value. As long a the retail trader is getting the right price at the right time, and the broker (RH in this case) is getting paid for the PFOF, then everybody win.

A Market order directed to BOX and a Market order directed to CBOE will result with the same fills due to the NBBO constraint. You cannot have a better fill at one exchange. All US option exchanges must respect the NBBO. The only difference is you might receive multiple partial fills.

That's why I started by saying 'To simplify'.

To simplify, for 1 contract opened, you have one opening buyer and one opening seller. One is thinking that the underlying will be up, and the other one is thinking that it will go down. One will make money, and one will loose. Only one is smart (or lucky!).

I don't think 'scalping' and 'letting the winners run' can go together. Unless the term 'scalping' means something different for you than what it was originally defined for. To answer your specific question, it all depends on your trading method/strategy/model. If you tested it well, you...

Check here: https://www.internationalliving-magazine.com/best-places-in-the-world-to-retire.html

In that order: 1) Back-test your strategy with historical data, many years at least. 2) Paper trading in real-time. 3) If 2 doesn't work, go back to 1. If 2 is working for many consecutive months, go to 4. 4) Trade with real money but with minimum size. 5) if 4 doesn't work, go back to 1. If 4...

It's Price-Time priority during the opening matching algo at the MX (for the scenario described by the OP). There is no such thing as MM priority.

Why not IQFeed?

I suspect that the 44K order was a Market-at-Open order and that IB showed it as a limit order at the TOP (theoretical opening price). At the opening, Market order has priority over limit order (at the MX).

Good job wabu!!!

I have done it once. I was taking nothing for the first 20% of profit, and 50% after that, +2% flat annual fee.

I agree with you. Some people learn faster than others. The OP seems to have a dream (of becoming profitable). He may gets there one day, but for sure he won't by not trying. If he needs to lost money to do so, so be it. The path to becoming successful is not easy.

It's better to try and fail and be sorry, than not to try and regret. Worst thing is not trying. It's only money after all...

I'm not in a position to give you advice, but it's better to be happy with how much you have done than to be sad with how much you have left on the table.

+6.67% for one day and you call it a 'Fail'!!!! I'll be glad to have that daily type of 'Fail'. I want to fail too...

IB is well known to be shit for market data. It's either you live with it, or you use a real market data vendor. I'm with IB for trading (order and account management), but with IQFeed for the market data.