Relative orders that move both ways?

the link you provided detail how to do it. However, in a wide market and if you're found someone could push your bid up and up and then hit it
 
Would that really be a viable strategy? If it were profitable to push it up and hit it, it would be profitable for a third person to hit both orders before you can cancel the one that pushed it up.
 
That page on IB says, "Should the market start to move lower, the bid will remain aggressive until filled instead of remaining pegged to the bid. "

I don't want that. I want it to stay pegged to the bid even when the bid decreases. Is there another order type like REL except it stays pegged both ways?
 
ScroogeMcDuck said:
That page on IB says, "Should the market start to move lower, the bid will remain aggressive until filled instead of remaining pegged to the bid. "

I don't want that. I want it to stay pegged to the bid even when the bid decreases. Is there another order type like REL except it stays pegged both ways?
More...


maybe you can try hidden relative with auxprice=0.01
 
ScroogeMcDuck said:
That page on IB says, "Should the market start to move lower, the bid will remain aggressive until filled instead of remaining pegged to the bid. "

I don't want that. I want it to stay pegged to the bid even when the bid decreases. Is there another order type like REL except it stays pegged both ways?
More...

No, this does not exist. I went deep down the REL order-type rabbit hole and nearly made a thread about it last week...still might.
You can search for old (very old) threads on ET (like 8+ years ago) where people were complaining about exactly this, with others offering reasons why IB doesn't offer them (while other brokers do, though I forget which and not sure if that info is still current.)
 
d0rian said:
No, this does not exist. I went deep down the REL order-type rabbit hole and nearly made a thread about it last week...still might.
You can search for old (very old) threads on ET (like 8+ years ago) where people were complaining about exactly this, with others offering reasons why IB doesn't offer them (while other brokers do, though I forget which and not sure if that info is still current.)
More...

The one rationale that seemed to be offered most frequently (IIRC) was that REL orders that backed off (when the next-closest-bid backed off) would create exponentially more order volume, since there'd need to be a constant monitoring of the entire L2 order book to maintain a bid that were $0.01 (or whatever increment) better than the next-best bid...which also means a ton of order cancellation / re-submission (when you adjust an order price of an open order in TWS, it's processed as a cancellation of the previous order and submission of a new one). And (the rationale went) there'd be all kinds of ripple effects of that kind of massive spike in volume order: taxing of IB servers, possible additional exchange fees to IB depending on what their fee structure is, etc. I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of that, but that was the gist of my deep dive into the archives. I didn't find any of it all that persuasive tbh -- whatever technical / logistical obstacles there were seemed rather trivial for a semi-competent dev team [joke here], especially since other brokers (IIRC) offer this.

(EDIT: the one confusing part was that IB reps in the old thread chimed in to say 'hold on, we DO offer REL orders that back off like this'...except that doesn't seem to ever have actually been true...and when some ET posters pointed that out, the IB rep said something like 'oh, OK well that's a bug and we're working to fix it', but then disappeared and as best I can tell nothing ever changed.)
 
The link above states: "Orders with a "0" offset are submitted as limit orders at the best bid/ask and will move up and down with the market to continue to match the inside quote."

That does not actually work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top