Beware - critical flaw in IB Ideal Pro

cscott,

You and your little buddies just don't get it. Grow up and maybe someone serious will consider you worth talking too. In the mean time you continue to be the butt of my joke.

And, ROTFLMAO, no one who matters shares your stunningly stupid perceptions.
 
Thought this post was worth reposting seeing that someone had posted a small part of it.
Quote from IBj:

Answer: Too much name-calling and other irrelevancy. We (I) prefer to operate with serious traders who are trying to work WITH us to build the best possible platform. It is more efficient and productive.

This thread started with TraderTony describing a problem he experienced. As far as I can tell without searching through every post, his comments were accurate and appropriate. His problem was being reviewed outside of E-T and was evaluated on the merits of the problem, and not on what anyone said here. Based on what he posted, I believe his issue was resolved to his satisfaction.

I am aware of the problem with partials. It wasn't a problem when the platform was young and all activity happened against the banks. But as more clients actually trade with each other (and create 'partials' situtions), we have seen this 2-3 times. As long as the problem is reported promptly, we cover it. In the meantime, we have been working on a major release for the FX interface and the permanent solution will be included therein.

The comments about 'shading' and other such silliness aren't worth addressing. We have explained how the platform works in detail. Assuming one accepts the design statement as accurate, it is obvious that this does not happen.
More...
Guys, if we want IB to respond to questions here we have to avoid giving the threads over to those whose entire ET life seems devoted to amplifying (to the ridiculous) any thread that has a problem at IB.

For any newbies reading these threads - ask yourself why IB is such at topic of conversation. Its because most of us retail traders are IB's customers (and love them despite the odd little difficulty).
 
Quote from kiwi_trader:

cscott,

You and your little buddies just don't get it. Grow up and maybe someone serious will consider you worth talking too. In the mean time you continue to be the butt of my joke.

And, ROTFLMAO, no one who matters shares your stunningly stupid perceptions.
More...
No, YOU are the one that just doesn't get it. As far as growing up goes, I am far more mature than you in many ways, and probably at least 2-3 times older than you. Your perceptions are ALWAYS wrong and laughable at best. Frankly, I'd suggest you take your head out of your arse so you can see more clearly.

What we really need to be asking ourselves is:
Everytime someone brings up a problem with IB in this forum, why does kiwi_trader ALWAYS try to break up the thread?

 
Thought this post was worth reposting seeing that someone had posted a small part of it.
Quote from IBj:

Answer: Too much name-calling and other irrelevancy. We (I) prefer to operate with serious traders who are trying to work WITH us to build the best possible platform. It is more efficient and productive.

This thread started with TraderTony describing a problem he experienced. As far as I can tell without searching through every post, his comments were accurate and appropriate. His problem was being reviewed outside of E-T and was evaluated on the merits of the problem, and not on what anyone said here. Based on what he posted, I believe his issue was resolved to his satisfaction.

I am aware of the problem with partials. It wsn't a problem when the platform was young and all activity happened against the banks. But as more clients actually trade with each other (and create 'partials' situtions), we have seen this 2-3 times. As long as the problem is reported promptly, we cover it. In the meantime, we have been working on a major release for the FX interface and the permanent solution will be included therein.

The comments about 'shading' and other such silliness aren't worth addressing. We have explained how the platform works in detail. Assuming one accepts the design statement as accurate, it is obvious that this does not happen.
More...
Guys, if we want IB to respond to questions here we have to avoid giving the threads over to those whose entire ET life seems devoted to amplifying (to the ridiculous) any thread that has a problem at IB.

For any newbies reading these threads - ask yourself why IB is such at topic of conversation. Its because most of us retail traders are IB's customers (and love them despite the odd little difficulty).

On the other hand there are those scurrilous losers out there who can't take responsibility for their trading performance and just want to blame it on anything but the real problem. Cheers :)
 
Quote from cscott:



What we really need to be asking ourselves is:
Everytime someone brings up a problem with IB in this forum, why does kiwi_trader ALWAYS try to break up the thread?
More...

Here is what I think you are not understanding. There are three kinds of problems:

1. A problem many experience at the same time or have experienced.

2. A unique problem that only 1 or 2 have experienced.

3. A problem due to lack of understanding of IB's platform or presentation, general trading methodology, or lack of market knowledge.

No one ridicules problem number 1 except other broker shills or other broker customers. It usually amounts to a pitch to switch brokers. Sometimes it's helpful as having a backup broker is important. And details about other brokers which you wouldn't normally find are revealed in these threads. But mostly in these threads, useful information is shared between clients and occasionally from the broker in question.

Problem 2 tends to get interesting posts. It could be a trader who has specialized needs because their method of trading is more complex and so they can find flaws in IB's system that most would not experience. It also can be informative in the sense of future reference. But at the same time, it could be that one customer who fails to take responsibility for something that ultimately is their fault. We've had a number of those which ended up with the customer in question being flamed and being shown how it was their fault. Almost invariably, that customer acknowledges their fault after a while.

Problem 3 is the one that draws the most "flames" because most experienced traders can recognize those who are inexperienced and who tend to blame everything but themselves. Many of their problems are avoidable if they would take the time to read and study. Also, these types tend to want everything their way instead of learning to exploit or work around what actually exists. They rarely offer constructive criticism but instead "whine" about how things are and how they'd like it to be. They also tend to take the position that business must cater to them regardless of their status. Meaning, they feel that their piker trades should have equal weight and equal say as the person who is pushing through large lots. Sure, a collective of piker traders have a voice, but to expect one is unrealistic.

There's another group. The conspiracy theorist who swears there are forces out to get them. They swear the broker is up to no good based upon scant or singularly anecdotal evidence.
 
Quote from cscott:

No, YOU are the one that just doesn't get it. As far as growing up goes, I am far more mature than you in many ways, and probably at least 2-3 times older than you. Your perceptions are ALWAYS wrong and laughable at best. Frankly, I'd suggest you take your head out of your arse so you can see more clearly.

What we really need to be asking ourselves is:
Everytime someone brings up a problem with IB in this forum, why does kiwi_trader ALWAYS try to break up the thread?
More...

Kiwi is too stupid to have the ability to respond in an intelligent way to any post and never mind understanding something intellectually challenging. THE good news is he is not ALONE!

All he does is give good example of IB !!

Also how on earth could a broker be professional of they exclude liability for INTENTIONAL ACTS?
 
Quote from Eagle Eye:

Also how on earth could a broker be professional of they exclude liability for INTENTIONAL ACTS?
More...

Elaborate and cite "priviso" paragraph please.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it:

30. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: CUSTOMER ACCEPTS THE IB SYSTEM "AS IS", AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE, PURPOSE OR APPLICATION; TIMELINESS; FREEDOM FROM INTERRUPTION; OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARISING FROM TRADE USAGE, COURSE OF DEALING OR COURSE OF PERFORMANCE. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL IB BE LIABLE FOR ANY PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS OR DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOSS OF BUSINESS, PROFITS OR GOODWILL. IB SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO CUSTOMER BY REASON OF DELAYS OR INTERRUPTIONS OF SERVICE OR TRANSMISSIONS, OR FAILURES OF PERFORMANCE OF THE IB SYSTEM, REGARDLESS OF CAUSE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THOSE CAUSED BY HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE MALFUNCTION; GOVERNMENTAL, EXCHANGE OR OTHER REGULATORY ACTION; ACTS OF GOD; WAR, TERRORISM, OR IB'S INTENTIONAL ACTS. CUSTOMER RECOGNIZES THAT THERE MAY BE DELAYS OR INTERRUPTIONS IN THE USE OF THE IB SYSTEM, INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE CAUSED INTENTIONALLY BY IB FOR PURPOSES OF SERVICING THE IB SYSTEM. CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT CUSTOMER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING ALTERNATIVE TRADING ARRANGEMENTS IN ADDITION TO CUSTOMER'S IB ACCOUNT. IN NO EVENT SHALL IB'S LIABILITY, REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION AND DAMAGES SUFFERED BY CUSTOMER, EXCEED THE HIGHEST AGGREGATE MONTHLY COMMISSIONS AND FEES PAID BY CUSTOMER TO IB.

Obviously, you haven't seen other broker legalese. Some aren't as upfront or adhere to full disclosure. But this isn't anything new. It's a clause that exists with many other brokerages specifically where electronic mediums for trading are involved.
 
Quote from ddunbar:

Elaborate and cite "priviso" paragraph please.
More...

You found it, can you give me example of some broker who excludes liability in a similar way.
 
Quote from Eagle Eye:

You found it, can you give me example of some broker who excludes liability in a similar way.
More...

Sure can:

Lind-Waldock Disclaimer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright Notice:
© Copyright 2006 Lind-Waldock. All rights reserved.
141 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1400-A, Chicago, IL 60604, USA 312-788-2958

Disclaimer
The information contained in the pages of the Lind-Waldock Web site (the "Information") has been compiled by sources ("Data Suppliers") believed to be reliable. Performance is based upon information which has been provided by the trading advisors and such information is not reviewed or verified by Lind-Waldock or the Data Suppliers. Neither Lind-Waldock nor any Data Suppliers make any representations or warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any purpose or use of the Information. The Information may not in all cases be current and it is subject to continuous change. Accordingly, you should not rely on any of the Information as authoritative or a substitute for the exercise of your own skill and judgment in making any investment or other decision. Lind-Waldock and the Data Suppliers do not warrant that the supply of Information will be uninterrupted or error free and will not be liable for any direct, indirect, or consequential loss arising from any use of or reliance on the Information or any portion of LindConnect.
 
Here's another:

No liability for content; no liability arising from use: Goldman Sachs shall have no liability, contingent or otherwise, to the user or to third parties, or any responsibility whatsoever, for the failure of any connection or communication service to provide or maintain user's access to this service, or for any interruption or disruption of such access or any erroneous communication between Goldman Sachs and user, regardless of whether the connection or communication service is provided by Goldman Sachs or a third party service provider. Goldman Sachs shall have no liability, contingent or otherwise, to the user or to third parties, for the correctness, quality, accuracy, timeliness, pricing, reliability, performance, continued availability, completeness or delays, omissions or interruptions in the delivery of the data and services available herein or for any other aspect of the performance of this service or for any failure or delay in the execution of any transactions through this service. In no event will Goldman Sachs be liable for any special, indirect, incidental or consequential damages which may be incurred or experienced on account of the user using the data or services made available herein, even if Goldman Sachs has been advised of the possibility of such damages. Goldman Sachs will have no responsibility to inform the user of any difficulties experienced by Goldman Sachs or third parties with respect to the use of the services or to take any action in connection therewith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top