This is getting ridiculous

I posted a complaint about autotrade vs. hypothetical fills in my Forum. This is a follow up.

Today I shorted around 951. I get an autotrade fill of 952, although the price was never that high and my market order took more than 1 minute to go through. OK, so that is 1 extra point for me. Then when the price is below 947 I push cover. I first get a price of 947.25 which is realistic. Then 2 minutes later C2’s autotrader adjust it to 951, although the price was NEVER higher than 948 in that timeframe.

So C2 credits me with 1 point gain (and that is because it gave me a favorable entry) instead of an about 4 pts gain. I mentioned earlier, on the main page there should be only hypothetical fills shown and if one is interested, they can click on the Autotrade fills to see them.

I simply can’t trade based on guessing what C2 is going to adjust my price what I see when I enter the trades on the platform…

I rechecked, the highest tick was 948.75 after that drop, so there is no way anybody autotrading could have got a 951, as cover price. Something is seriously off, that’s why I prefer hypothetical fills on the main page…They seem to work, meaning they are realistic…

While I understand your desire that we only show hypothetical fills, and not real broker execution prices, legally speaking, we must show the broker fill data if we have it, and in your case we do. I can certainly investigate to see why a broker would report an impossible fill price – stranger things have happened – but until I know the specifics, it’s hard to comment further.

I have investigated further and have some details.

I assume you are talking about signal id 3632971 STO @ESZ8 at Market

You say that the prices received by your autotraders were “impossible” but I have investigated and disagree. Indeed, you have autotraders who are trading at more than one broker, and both brokers apparently filled your customers’ market orders at “impossible” prices.

Customer 1: Filled at 951.25 at OpenECry

Customer 2: Filled at 951.25 at Interactive Brokers

Price now on your C2 trading record: 951.25

Further I checked the quote feeds, too, and see that C2’s market-data provider agrees that the low and high price of the minute bar ending at 9:35:00 is 950.50 / 952.25 … so, certainly a price of 951.25 is perfectly reasonable for a market order.

So I am unsure why you think this price is inaccurate.

It is true that when Collective2 gave you an initial fill price (before the broker executions came in) your fill was different. But that tentative price was just a guess based on hypothetical quote feed data. As soon as the brokers reported the executions we changed your trading record to reflect what real traders actually received.

Are you trading your own system in real life? If not, how can you argue that the prices received by two real life customers, at separate brokers, are wrong?

something has to be blamed when a vendor is unhappy…

He said in the thread on his system’s forum that he is using C2’s prices on the order screen to determine when to trade, rather than the underlying real prices in the real market, and then complains when the C2 prices are adjusted to fills that subs got in the real world trading with real money.

How can you key a ‘system’ off hypothetical prices and then complain when your system stats are adjusted to reflect the fills your subscribers got in the real world by following your advice? Incredible.

No, I was talking about the NEXT trade, covering the short. I thought it was obvious from my post. I mentioned that I actually got a better fill when I opened the position, C2 said it was 952 when you correctly say now that it was 951.25.

I took a screenshot of the tick showing the next bars, once the price fell, it never went back above 950 and in the timeframe when I closed it the highest tick was 948.75…

I would like to ask people who don’t understand the problem please refrain from posting this thread, it is none of your business.

Here is the problematic trade:

36329391 BTC 946.25

Now it shows 946.25 and I assume you corrected it (or C2 did). But this is how it went:

Price was just below 947 so I push the cover button and I got a quick fill of 947.25, I am happy with it, because the price was moving up and down, it was realistic. Then 2-3 minutes later it shows 951 as readjusted fill from autotraders! Again, the price was nowwhere near, the highest tick after the market started to fall was 948.75… After I complained it got changed again, I am not sure who did it, since you Matt, didn’t seem to realize that was the wrong fill. maybe autotrader readjusted it again.

Anyway, another problem with showing real life fills is that occasionally strange things happen. I had 30 and 70 ES points “slippages” what Matt had to correct and on the autofill page I still have 4-5 similar 9-10 points slippages that never occured. Now if it shows only on the Autotrade fills, that is one thing but if it effects the main page, that is another…

>Now if it shows only on the Autotrade fills, that is one thing but if it effects the main page, that is another…

Interesting but none of those strange slippages made it to the main page, they are only shown in the Autotrader fills page. Example:

36073466 trade shows a giant -29.62 slippage bit the hypothetical fill on the main page is correct. I don’t get how some autotrades make it to the main page and some don’t???

"I would like to ask people who don’t understand the problem please refrain from posting this thread"

That somehow didn’t stop you from posting…

Oh, I get the problem Pedro. You’re not looking at the bid and ask. Why you’re paying attention to C2 data that’s slightly delayed, I’m not sure. Just watch your real quote feed and worry about c2 adjusting the prices if needed. I’ve never looked at the c2 feed for something like that.

Beau, what vendor do you suggest to use as real quote feed?

Bloomberg, newswires, and dual quad screens hooked up to a cqg machine.