why dont you try our free real time demo and see for yourself with realtime fills on the mini sp and mini nasdaq how things work for you?
http://e-mini.com/eminicom-simulated.html
http://e-mini.com/eminicom-simulated.html
Should I be trading Emini instead of QQQ ?
- Thread starter canadian_dude
- Start date
per def's comments above,
1.) I can testify it. Yes, I've done so and if the bid/ask prices don't change too quickly, you'll see your orders appear immediately, on both TWS and Reuters Terminal. And the bid/ask size changes accordingly.
2.) basically agree upon. IB's stop order fills, no matter how it's implemented, are 'always' quicker and better than phone-in orders to my UnInteractive broker who introducing Refco. Won't comment on other real competitive platforms, PATS, TT, GL, etc. I think it may be a real sorry for us retail traders that IB-TT deal doesn't materialize. But maybe IB will come out with alternatives to achieve that goal. I, personally, dream for IB to offer CQG/Otto integration for futures trading. As an optional, of course, don't panic, boys who prefer simple and cost-effective execution only platform. Dream, partly because current CQG-PATSystem alliance.
3.) I have no stance to comment on this. I have no pit experience. But as a foreign trader thousands of miles away from USA, and Chicago of course, if not the combined success of e-mini's and Internet-based direct access trading as a feasible vehicle, I think I would have already given up trading any non-asian markets back on 1999, due to cost and order placing/filling/confirmation/cancellation issues. I'm anti-pit, anti the so called (traditional-style) "professionals". I'm biased, admitted. I'm consciously biased to electronic direct access trading, to level-playing-field, to transparency, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. And to real quality, of course, if reasonably affordable. From my experience 'offshore' trading HK's Hang Seng Index futures both before and after the open-outcry/electronic transformation, I cannot justify any benefit that open-outcry world claims to have. I don't think my fills during the Asian financial crisis would get any worse if then HKFE were already in its today's screen-based. A drop from around 13700 to 12580 - several unfilled 'ASK' prices even lower than 12580, and back to stabilize shortly at around 13000, all in less than half an hour. I called in, MKT of course, to cover position, when the ASK went south of 12700. About 10 minutes later, my fill confirmed at 12780, realizing a 800+ pts profit, and the market had returned to above 12900. I was, and am, satisfied with that execution. My broker was very competitive in the HKFE pit, the so called 'occupy a strategic position' in the pit. And my order was direct to the pit. Even so you see that during a real fast market pit-trading doesn't help much, especiaaly to off-floor traders. Of course it's HKFE, not CME. But I don't think things will be much different if in CME. I mention this old story because I don't think it will do any worse if HKFE were then in the current electronic system. To finish the story, that day's HSIU7 closed at 13770, one week later back to above 15000, then back and forth between 14000~15000 for one month, before its final crash to reach 6500 nearly one year later. That day is 02Sep97.
1.) I can testify it. Yes, I've done so and if the bid/ask prices don't change too quickly, you'll see your orders appear immediately, on both TWS and Reuters Terminal. And the bid/ask size changes accordingly.
2.) basically agree upon. IB's stop order fills, no matter how it's implemented, are 'always' quicker and better than phone-in orders to my UnInteractive broker who introducing Refco. Won't comment on other real competitive platforms, PATS, TT, GL, etc. I think it may be a real sorry for us retail traders that IB-TT deal doesn't materialize. But maybe IB will come out with alternatives to achieve that goal. I, personally, dream for IB to offer CQG/Otto integration for futures trading. As an optional, of course, don't panic, boys who prefer simple and cost-effective execution only platform. Dream, partly because current CQG-PATSystem alliance.
3.) I have no stance to comment on this. I have no pit experience. But as a foreign trader thousands of miles away from USA, and Chicago of course, if not the combined success of e-mini's and Internet-based direct access trading as a feasible vehicle, I think I would have already given up trading any non-asian markets back on 1999, due to cost and order placing/filling/confirmation/cancellation issues. I'm anti-pit, anti the so called (traditional-style) "professionals". I'm biased, admitted. I'm consciously biased to electronic direct access trading, to level-playing-field, to transparency, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. And to real quality, of course, if reasonably affordable. From my experience 'offshore' trading HK's Hang Seng Index futures both before and after the open-outcry/electronic transformation, I cannot justify any benefit that open-outcry world claims to have. I don't think my fills during the Asian financial crisis would get any worse if then HKFE were already in its today's screen-based. A drop from around 13700 to 12580 - several unfilled 'ASK' prices even lower than 12580, and back to stabilize shortly at around 13000, all in less than half an hour. I called in, MKT of course, to cover position, when the ASK went south of 12700. About 10 minutes later, my fill confirmed at 12780, realizing a 800+ pts profit, and the market had returned to above 12900. I was, and am, satisfied with that execution. My broker was very competitive in the HKFE pit, the so called 'occupy a strategic position' in the pit. And my order was direct to the pit. Even so you see that during a real fast market pit-trading doesn't help much, especiaaly to off-floor traders. Of course it's HKFE, not CME. But I don't think things will be much different if in CME. I mention this old story because I don't think it will do any worse if HKFE were then in the current electronic system. To finish the story, that day's HSIU7 closed at 13770, one week later back to above 15000, then back and forth between 14000~15000 for one month, before its final crash to reach 6500 nearly one year later. That day is 02Sep97.
SciTrader
i dont quite see what the advantage of combining a trading platform such as IB or whoever, with a charting package such as CQG
is it understood that the trading platform still receives its data as a feed form globex etc and that the feed for the charting package would come seperately via the servers of your charting/data supplier
CQG would like it, since they would then be eligible for a cut of the transaction, and i like CQG so much, I would not begrudge them that cut!, but it would concern me if the routing of the order was in anyway delayed due to CGQ being in the order flow
one advantage of seperation is that if either one goes down, you still have data from the other to act on, and if needed you can, if i understand it correctly, use the globex data feed of IB to implement any black box systems you have?
i dont quite see what the advantage of combining a trading platform such as IB or whoever, with a charting package such as CQG
is it understood that the trading platform still receives its data as a feed form globex etc and that the feed for the charting package would come seperately via the servers of your charting/data supplier
CQG would like it, since they would then be eligible for a cut of the transaction, and i like CQG so much, I would not begrudge them that cut!, but it would concern me if the routing of the order was in anyway delayed due to CGQ being in the order flow
one advantage of seperation is that if either one goes down, you still have data from the other to act on, and if needed you can, if i understand it correctly, use the globex data feed of IB to implement any black box systems you have?
I agree keep them seperate. Integration makes more sense for equities though. But with so few symbol changes with futures it's hardly required to have the order entry and charting packages integrated. I think the better alternative is to have the IB pick up the cost of the trading pkg based on size..
In reality the speed thing wouldn't be an issue with an integrated platofrm. CQG already allow you to connect directly from their software to your PATS broker (Otto I think they call it).
Your order is created in the CQG software but transmitted directly to your PATS broker's host system as normal: in other words CQG and such-like packages can be used to ease the creation of orders directly from your charts or trading systems but the actual routing of the order remains unchanged.
Your order is created in the CQG software but transmitted directly to your PATS broker's host system as normal: in other words CQG and such-like packages can be used to ease the creation of orders directly from your charts or trading systems but the actual routing of the order remains unchanged.
def
Sponsor
Timber Hill does not trade against the order flow.
However, now that TMBR is a nasdaq market maker, IB has added the TMBR route to the BEST EX algorithm. If TMBR can provide the same or a better price on an order it will provide an immediate execution.
Timber Hill may be on the other side of a trade but IB will only provide the best available price to its clients. Timber Hill does not make trading decisions based upon client flow.
from the web site:
In addition to automatic execution of orders by certain exchanges and ECNs, IB's market-making affiliate Timber Hill LLC also provides automatic execution for certain eligible IB customer orders routed through IB's Best Execution and Best ECN routing systems, both for certain Nasdaq stocks and certain NYSE and other exchange-listed stocks. When an order is sent using Best Execution or Best ECN routing, if Timber Hill is willing to provide an execution at the best available national price or better for that stock, IB may send the order to Timber Hill for an immediate automatic execution. Orders sent to Timber Hill for automatic execution are eligible for price improvement (i.e., they may be executed at a price better than the national best bid or offer). Only orders that are immediately executable are eligible to be routed by IB to Timber Hill.
However, now that TMBR is a nasdaq market maker, IB has added the TMBR route to the BEST EX algorithm. If TMBR can provide the same or a better price on an order it will provide an immediate execution.
Timber Hill may be on the other side of a trade but IB will only provide the best available price to its clients. Timber Hill does not make trading decisions based upon client flow.
from the web site:
In addition to automatic execution of orders by certain exchanges and ECNs, IB's market-making affiliate Timber Hill LLC also provides automatic execution for certain eligible IB customer orders routed through IB's Best Execution and Best ECN routing systems, both for certain Nasdaq stocks and certain NYSE and other exchange-listed stocks. When an order is sent using Best Execution or Best ECN routing, if Timber Hill is willing to provide an execution at the best available national price or better for that stock, IB may send the order to Timber Hill for an immediate automatic execution. Orders sent to Timber Hill for automatic execution are eligible for price improvement (i.e., they may be executed at a price better than the national best bid or offer). Only orders that are immediately executable are eligible to be routed by IB to Timber Hill.