I’m very happy with my current broker and utilize their tools everyday to help me determine my trade that I will put on for the day.
I know absolutely nothing about the tools of these autotrade brokers establishED here on C2.
As you can see, I only have about 3 or 4 minutes to get my trade selection together everyday using my brokers tools that I am very comfortable with before the market closes everyday.
So,you are saying you expect me to split my 4 minutes of concentration between the broker platform I am using now and some other broker’s platform that I know absolutely nothing about just so I can prove that my system is trade worthy? Are you out of your mind? There is no time for that. Time is of the essence on these EOD trades. There is no room for my juggling 2 platforms in addition to the proprietary software that I am running in those last 4 minutes of day to come up with the stock to trade.
I am proving that my system is trade worth by the track record I am building up here on C2. Isn’t that the whole purpose of the C2 philosophy?
Even though I am still new here, it sounds to me like you are making up your own rules of engagement. But, I follow the guidelines established in the rule of this website. Not yours.
And, besides. I already told you that Daily_Cash is being autotraded.
What do you want from me?
Why don’t I just get my autotrader to write his own review after about a month or so? How’s that? Or even better, why don’t you spend just 15 bucks and do your own dirty work?
NO MORE ARGUING WITH YOU GUYS. I’M DONE HERE.
WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE’S PROBLEM? GEEEZ!
IT’S LIKE BUMPING INTO A HORNETS NEST AROUND HERE! GEEEZ!
I can only conclude that you either can’t read or don’t understand what auto trading means. If you have your system auto traded on C2 you don’t have to do anything - that is the whole purpose of it.
Your answer also indicates that you don’t care how the auto trading works out for potential subscribers, all you seem to be interested in is showing good hypothetical statistics no matter how unrealistic they are in real life trading.
Your marketing effort seems to be directed to the unsuspecting newbie,
low account balance, luring with “limited number of subscribers”, no free trial etc.
You have absolutely nothing to lose with auto trading your own system on C2 if it works in real life, you only would make additional money and gain a huge advertising advantage. You have not presented any valid argument against it and that makes me beliefe your system is not workable in real life. Please prove me wrong by auto trading it yourself instead of using lame arguments.
It is good you don’t have your own forum - you have this knack for alienating everyone who has tried to respond to you. And yet you think the problem is with everyone else…
Now to your issue: If you have a vested interest in changing the “touch” idea, it seems like charging Matthew to hear your idea is the wrong way to go. Think about it:
What is his incentive to change it? (hint: none, current way works fine, is pretty much industry standard)
What is your incentive to change it? (hint: a lot, since you have to spend so much time explaining to potential subs why stats for your system, and your system alone, are wrong).
Who is losing more potential dollars by not changing it? (hint: you are, Matt would lose 30%, you lose 70%)
Maybe programmers can charge travel, hotel and $600 per hour to their clients. But, maybe you should start thinking like a marketing person, or public relations person, or customer service person, or sales person, or business development person, and NOT like a programmer.
TP
I can’t believe I’m still posting a reply after I said I’m done here.
But, maybe you are the one that can’t read. So, I will say it again in large caps:
I ALREADY HAVE AN AUTOTRADE SUBSCRIBER!
I ALREADY HAVE AN AUTOTRADE SUBSCRIBER!
I ALREADY HAVE AN AUTOTRADE SUBSCRIBER!
One more thing. You are a hostile C2 subscriber.
So, please don’t bother signing on with either of my systems.
Because, I suspect that no matter what, I will not get a good review from you.
SO, PEACE!
I’M DONE WITH THIS POST AND I MEAN IT THIS TIME!
Post @ 19:32 "NO MORE ARGUING WITH YOU GUYS. I’M DONE HERE."
Post @ 20:21 "I can’t believe I’m still posting a reply after I said I’m done here. "
You kept your word for a whole 49 minutes.
Credibility = 0
Way to go.
And I think that the subscription price coupled with the trades and statistical evidence is enough to entice people to sign up. The price is ridiculously low
it just $85/mo.
One system has 10 trades, the other one crashed and is struggling back to the service. I think we already have an overabundance of this.
I already have an autotrade subscriber.
Mom doesnt count
But,the only danger of your watch it for that long is that I may (or may not) reach the total subscriber count that I am looking for (which is my secret) by then. Because, once I hit that limit, I won’t be taking anymore subscribers.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA I am rolling on the floor laughing… STOP, PLEASE
I am going to snort up a hair ball
… ROFLMAO
There are supposedly 8,700 systems on C2. Wanna guess how many currently have a significant number of subs and have to limit their subs? Wanna guess how many of them started out, feeling the way you did??? Some of us have been here for 3+ years. You are just the latest in a long line of lemmings…
I am proving that my system is trade worth by the track record I am building up here on C2. Isn’t that the whole purpose of the C2 philosophy?
Yes, but the other 99% dont broadcast how naïve they are. You will 99% likely be history in 6 months or else you will be doing some seriously statistical manipulation to try and keep up appearances, you just dont realize it yet
WHAT ARE YOU PEOPLE’S PROBLEM? GEEEZ!
Your attitude.
I ALREADY HAVE AN AUTOTRADE SUBSCRIBER!
I ALREADY HAVE AN AUTOTRADE SUBSCRIBER!
I ALREADY HAVE AN AUTOTRADE SUBSCRIBER!
Mommy, you can go now. He will be fine, really!
I’m interested in all ideas that can improve the site. But I can’t pay your airfare, hotel, and consulting fee, just to have you present your ideas in person to me. Why not write them down in an email and send them to me privately? Thanks - MK
Matt, I guess I won’t bother with my Disney proposal. Shoot, I thought I could get a free vacation out of the deal!
On second though.
Matthew, I understand that sync positions problem isn’t easy one. Particularly for limit orders. From other side you have to try to understand a system vendor point of view. It’s hard as well to blindly work with TC that is distributed over different brokers and when you have only general idea about position size and how it will be executed in reality.
If we assume:
1. limit orders is reality for working strategies.
2. Converting of limit orders to market orders is altering of the kind of strategies with unpredictable effect.
3. Partial fills might be a part of the kind of strategies.
More reasonable solution for syncing limit orders might be:
1. Hypothetical fills for systems without autotraders.
2. Give a system vendor a chance to prohibit conversion of limit orders to market orders for autotraders. Or at least a chance to warn about unknown effect of altering a strategy in the way.
3. (Most interesting part.) C2 has to start simulate partial-fills. It means that an autotrader is reporting back C2 his/her fill. C2 scale the fill down to current system position with counting all autotraders. The fill is reported back to the system vendor as partial fill.
Simulation of partial fills will definitely give benefits to autotraders in terms of syncing their positions with C2 system and relaying on the system vendor decision regarding current situation instead of blind altering a strategy.
It would benefit system vendors as well, because they will have realistic feed back for their systems and their system won’t be forcefully altered.
What do you think?
Eu
What do you think?
Silence is an answer anyway. Gen3 with 10 secs delay before converting limit order to market. Understand. Anything outside of C2 is unrealistic.
Thank you for your response,
Eu
Eu-
Forgive my lack of response. Your idea is interesting, and perhaps it is even better than the current way C2 handles just-touched limit orders.
But I think the overall improvement it would allow would be modest compared to the tremendous efforts required to re-architect and re-develop the AutoTrading software, broker interfaces, etc. Further, every new AutoTrading software improvement entails risk of breaking something else that currently works. Since there are so many other development priorities right now, I’m not sure this is something we will tackle in the near term.
But I do appreciate your taking the time to think about this. Perhaps in the future it will be something we can revisit.
Understand. Thank you for your response.
Eu
Hi, Matt, the issue is not whether the data feed filled the order, but whether it traded through or at the ask price. C2 should be filling buys at the ask and sells at the bid. In the case of limit orders, C2 should only consider the order filled if the ask price hit the buy limit and if the bid hit the stop limit. This method of tracking the last price is not the one you should be using. I think more should be emphasized on the quote, rather than the last tick. If the ask price hits a buy limit and no other autotraders hit then I would agree the system’s not tradeable. Anyway, I think I’ve mentioned this to you before. In the case of a sell limit, the order should only be filled on c2’s servers if the bid price ever hits the limit price. Using the last is not the best way to be doing this.
Beau: We are already doing exactly what you describe. We do not look at the last price. We look at the bid/ask. But this does not relate to the issue being discussed here, which is that, in the case of a non-market-clearing order (a "just touched" limit order), there is no guarantee that all subscribers/or autotraders will be filled.
Then I guess I’m missing something here. If you are doing that, what’s with the “wait 10 seconds”? I’d just have c2 convert to market order immediately when the price is hit if there’s the just touched issue.
Then I guess I’m missing something here.
It’s complicated issue when we start speaking about clearance of limit orders in stocks. Even if C2 shows fill buys at the ask and sells at the bid in its hypothetical engine it doesn’t guarantee fill for all subscribers. It’s obvious. What makes things more complicated is distribution of subscribers between different exchanges and brokers. Even if a price went over/above a limit order price it doesn’t guarantee a fill for some sub-set of subscribers. It’s not very obvious (smile).
what’s with the "wait 10 seconds"
To keep subscribers in sync C2’s Gen3 software initiates market order after some short delay. My point was/is that forceful market orders are altering a system vendors system. i.e. in my case I have a session time frame. so I simply don’t care when an order is fully filled at 9.30am or 2.40pm. So forceful conversion limit to market order is altering a system in my case. My proposition was to simulate partial fills on auto subscribers feed backs, because it’s more realistic.
That’s it.
Eu
Eu, your points are valid. However, from a subscriber’s viewpoint I agree with Beau. I use TradeBullet for most systems I trade. There the user can adjust in the time in seconds a touched limit order should be converted to a market order after C2 reports a fill. I set it at 0 or 1 seconds. I can not see any benefit for the subscriber to wait 10 seconds.
I want to bring up a related problem here. I trade a system which trades the DAX on the Eurex. Recently it placed a buy stop order when the market had already moved above the buy stop price. Most exchanges would execute such an order as a market order but Eurex rejects such orders which caused me to miss over $3,000 in profit. Should not C2 automatically convert such an order to a market order?
Karl,
Eu, your points are valid.
Well… Mostly I argued with MKs point of view “then frankly your system is not tradable in real life, with real money.”.
However, from a subscriber’s viewpoint I agree with Beau.
At the moment the discussion is purely theoretical, because we don’t expect any C2’s improvement in near future. However, you and Beau aren’t exactly correct. Highly liquid ETFs aren’t stocks. (smile) Forceful replacement of limit order to market is altering of a system. You have to understand simple thing that on consolidated trade you aren’t alone so size of pending order might be relatively big for current available volume in a stock and execution of the size at market price might lead to unnecessary losses for subscribers. Moreover, partial fills is very usual situation that might be already considered in a system itself. I don’t see any reasons for not simulating real life at C2, except technical issues from C2’s side.
I’m not speaking from thin air. I manually did sync of partial fills for my subscribers and it worked as expected. However, it’s violation of C2’s TOS, because it becomes personalized advises, there are bunch of problems with execution of distributed TC over different brokers from system vendor point of view. It’s not simple issue as you can see from your subscriber’s side.
I can not see any benefit for the subscriber to wait 10 seconds.
Gen3 software has to use some hardcoded delay for its sync. Nobody asks subscribers/vendors about the kind of delay or even if they want the forceful conversion. It’s simple, but not perfect solution for sync.
Eu
Can you talk IB into doing generation 3
