Two days ago I began to autotrade Whynot. Here is my experience:
First trade(5/24/06-5/25/06)
system: STO 107 11/32 BTC 106 30/32 13 ticks gain
mine: STO 107 11/32 BTC 107 1/32 10 ticks gain
Reason: vendor uses limit order to close position. The price was touched but all market only had two contracts filled. I manually closed my position.
Second trade(5/25/06-5/26/06)
system: BTO 107 12/32 still open
mine: BTO 107 12/32 BTC 106 18/32 26 ticks loss
Reason: stop loss order triggered. If you look at the intraday chart, you will find we bough at highest point and sold at the lowest. I don’t know why C2 still shows the position is still open.
If a system uses limit order to trade, it should deserve lower realism factor.
"system: STO 107 11/32 BTC 106 30/32 13 ticks gain
mine: STO 107 11/32 BTC 107 1/32 10 ticks gain
Reason: vendor uses limit order to close position. The price was touched but all market only had two contracts filled. I manually closed my position."
As I suggested before, why not have a MIT option?
MIT’s (Market If Touched) is filled at the market when the price
is hit. It would seem to be a near necessity for auto traded accounts.
Although there would be some slippage relative to limits, the
theoretical and real time positions would be the same. With limits
this is NOT always the case and could produce a disaster in an unmonitored account.
We are talking about realism factor.
My opinion is , even though you trade the most liquid instrument in the world, if vendor used limit order to trade, you still have a chance to miss a trade.
Any system that uses limit order should deserve a lower realism factor.
I am not agree with you. It depends, many limit orders are filled crossing the limit price
“We are talking about realism factor.
My opinion is , even though you trade the most liquid instrument in the world, if vendor used limit order to trade, you still have a chance to miss a trade.
Any system that uses limit order should deserve a lower realism factor.“
Once again (is it a language issue, or is it me?), I agree. MIT’s act like a limit, but they become *Market If Touched”. In theory, there would be no
"chance to miss a trade.” It would eliminate the missed trade issue on limit orders.
Thanks,
S.A.M.
(Solutions @ Markets)
"many limit orders are filled crossing the limit price"
Every losing trade with a limit entry is filled by everyone
Not every winning trade with a limit entry will be filled (those that just touch the price but do not trade through it)
When a vendor uses a limit entry he guarantees that you will get every losing trade from the system but you may miss some winning trades. The net effect on this on your real P/L vs the C2 theoritical P/L can be quite significant.
So is it better to use market for all orders? I’m still experimenting with my C2 system and want to do what would be best for the user.
I like the idea of a MIT order.
Brad-
My experience on C2 has shown me that market orders are the best way to go (at least for my systems). MIT orders are also a good idea as an alternative.
Pete * is right on the money with his comments. In my trading of my other non-C2 systems (which use stops and limits), my stop losses always get hit (I’ve sold at the bottom quite a bit), but limit orders rarely get filled (unless price trades through limit).
If your system can work with mkt or MIT orders, use those. You’ll have a lot less complaints from subscribers, and a better realism factor.
Good luck
Kevin
