Quote from ddunbar:
I think you've either misunderstood me or I wasn't clear enough.
I'm suggesting that IB's systems monitor unpublished bids but that their system is setup to assume that since a trade occured below your stop, that condition 2 is met by implication. In this case, a published bid is not necessary because the fact that a trade occured implies that there was an actionable bid, albeit an unpublished one.
I know condition 2 says "published bid." But I think the system is programmed to interpret a last trade below as meeting both conditions. This is so that you don't get caught in a situation created by low liquidity were only bid/ask is moving below your stop but last price is still above. There are times when bid/ask may not be keeping up with last price so the system gives priority to last price if it's below your sell stop because published bid/ask may not have kept pace.
That's the way I see it anyway and understood it.
And by erroneous trade, I don't mean that it actually is an erroneous trade but that it could potentially be one which if determined so would lend to your benefit.
I don't think that it would make any sense to impose two conditions on a stop trigger, and then to assume that the first of the two conditions implies the second, so that the second need not be checked. I'm sure they are not doing this. I'm also sure that when a stop is triggered by a trade report, it doesn't matter if the reported trade was an error trade, and it would not benefit me in any way if it was an error trade. If my stop is triggered by an error trade, or because I don't know my broker's stop triggering logic, or both, then that is my problem, nobody else's.
Can anybody explain IB's "last" method for triggering stops?