Great explanations, I wish I read that 2 years ago. That would have saved me a lot of transaction costs.
"The smaller your edge and the more adverse moves against your position you expect, the more
aggressive you should be in terms of price and routes. The larger your edge and less adverse moves against your position you expect the less aggressive you can be in terms of price and routes."
I didn't quite understand why the size of your edge matters. If being aggressive with routes gives you a lower total transaction cost (commission + rebate/(fee) - expected value of adverse selection), then it makes sense to always be aggressive with routes. Am I missing something?
I do understand the part where you can be less aggressive with routing if you expect less adverse moves. But is it really possible to know that beforehand? That's like saying you know HFTs will take a break stealing from that particular stock.
"The smaller your edge and the more adverse moves against your position you expect, the more
aggressive you should be in terms of price and routes. The larger your edge and less adverse moves against your position you expect the less aggressive you can be in terms of price and routes."
I didn't quite understand why the size of your edge matters. If being aggressive with routes gives you a lower total transaction cost (commission + rebate/(fee) - expected value of adverse selection), then it makes sense to always be aggressive with routes. Am I missing something?
I do understand the part where you can be less aggressive with routing if you expect less adverse moves. But is it really possible to know that beforehand? That's like saying you know HFTs will take a break stealing from that particular stock.