IB's CTCI

Just want to add my vote here.
The dedicated line is the major stumbling block for me also. I don't want to be tied to a single location for trading, and the cost is also an issue. IB should consider waiving this requirement since it does not add to their revenue.

BTW - Here's a program that offers an order entry API: http://www.tradingsystem.com/perpetra.htm Right now they only support executions through ZAP futures whose commissions are much higher than IB. If their program supported IB - that would really be something.
 
By automatic I mean basically system trading with order entries done by programs. You will need a broker who offers API (application programming interface), so that you can call the API in your own program to enter orders. One example would be myTrack (www.mytrack.com/sdk), they offer API in C/Java and VB. the thing is they don't have emini trading, and the stock commissions are too high for flipping 100-500 shares. Still, a cool tool to do back/live testing though, you can enter order into their contest paper trading system, so you can actually let your robot compete in the contest.

Usually a decent PC is enough hardware to handle it.
 
NiteOwl, I have also talked to the people at ZAP, yeah, their commission is too high.

Also, I know some folks at smartfutures.net, Their lowest comm. is about $8-10/RT, and last time I asked about an API, the programmer demanded a ransom of $1k to set up my account as "API enabled". I wouldn't mind the 1k if the thing actually works and I can pay it off with profit, but up front? no way.

Let me know if you wonna try those folks, I will hook you up.
 
I believe the requirements for the dedicated line are to ensure a number of things including data integrety and certification of the end users application. An API is more taxing on the network and thus aren't handed out lightly. However, as time marches on I wouldn't be surprised if some of our requirements are relaxed. My personal opinion -this is not the firms opinion and please do not be offended - but if the cost of a 64K line is an issue, I would question if you really need an API. I do see the other side of the coin which is why plunk down the change if you do not have to. Then again, if there is/was a way that we could accommodate those wanting API's in an efficient without compromising the network, etc, I'd be all for it. This is not my domain but keep in mind things change and what someone says is not possible today may be possible tomorrow.
 
Thanks def for your reply... somehow Knyyt and I got the impression that a 'dedicated line' meant T1. If a 64k line is OK, then certainly cost is no longer an issue.
 
The truth is. We want access to API because. It's impossibly to found a good public tradeing interface for e-mini. they all are so primitive. This is sad because we know we can programm something a millions times better than anything on this market. No one provide what a e-mini trader need. Hope one of these days someone somewhere will waking up and making decent trading platform for e-mini that can give the real power that we need. Something that can give to trader flexibilty and control and the possibilty to make automatic trading.....Computer are they for a reason....I hope one of these days....front end software compagny will waking up and make something good......I'll dream until

If anyone hear something or want build a good front end software....email me.....I want to build my own one....

I'm really bored to use crap software like IB. Best. Pats. gltrade .etc

 
A CTCI interface (computer to computer) only benefits those who have their own front end program or wish to automate their trading. For example, IB has two types of CTCI users:
1. Other brokers who have their own front end platforms who use IB's routing capabilities for access to the various exchanges around the world;
2. Other traders/institutions that have their own pricing model that automatically route orders.

Thus a CTCI is not necessary for most traders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top