ECN, order execution, aggregators, liquidity. - page 29
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Do you want there to be no modelling at all?
I'm afraid you won't collide kotirs. Or, as I said, there will be movement without transactions.
Fear not. You don't need a "weekend server" anymore? Then you must be the only one...
I mean, I think that artificially quoting will only be necessary at first, and then it will move on its own, and not only on weekends at all.
// But this requires at least an ECN-engine.
Do you want there to be no modelling at all?
I'm afraid you won't collide the quotients. Or, as I said, movement without transactions will be.
That depends on how many people are willing.
In principle, it would be quite a stock instrument, if there are no legal problems.
That depends on how many people are willing.
In principle, it's quite a stock instrument if there are no legal problems.
By the way, you would greatly increase your popularity if you created on your demo server fictitious currency pairs of 3 to 5 (for starters?) non-existent currencies, like XXXYYY, XXXZZZZ, YYYZZZ, etc.
To be traded on exchanges, without providers (first, some Random could be created with very wide "outside" spread, to push them out of position, then to disconnect them when they are ready to move).
Especially it would be a bomb if this kitchen would work at weekends - people are moaning without the ticking charts at weekends, at least for algorithm debugging is of great value.
// And by the way, the scientific yield may be considerable - the stat-characteristics of quotes on instruments without a real security may (and maybe, but I don't think so) turn out to be different from the "real" ones.
Those who wish (including you) may arrange different championships-competitions, train in market-making, etc., etc..
I think the idea, if anything, as an advertisement for the service - a hyper-revenue.
// The truth is, I don't recommend it to start with, it may discourage those who would like to do it.
In my opinion, it is not a good idea to advertise the service, because it will constantly stimulate the MSF, and after a sure loss of interest, who wants to sit and speculate on nothing without profit and loss.
The same is true for the Forex market, but for a start, it may discourage those who want to trade.
The first thing to do would be to stimulate the RGS, and then, for sure, there would be no interest, who would want to sit and trade on nothing with no profit or loss.
I think there's a similar thing in Quicksilver (or TSLab).
I think it'll get a lot of action at weekends.
For example, if you are a robot, you may want to trade with several dozen robots and let them trade among themselves and with publishers, it will be flipping even more rapidly than real currencies.
--
I don't know. I would have opened a dozen accounts and put a lot of robots there.
i think it's strange. just when sumkin was looking for an empty glass to test his robots for three, he ran straight into the bushes.
I think it's gonna get a lot of action on the weekends. On weekdays, it might have to be stimulated.
But, by the way, it is not necessary to use the SSC, you can put a dozen robots there and let them trade among themselves and with the public - everything will fly like real currencies.
--
I don't know. I'd open a dozen accounts and put a bunch of robots in there. The fewer people, the happier I'd be.
I think it's strange. just when sumkin was looking for an empty glass to test his robots for three, he ran straight into the bushes.
It has been described many times:
Indices, in particular, are such FI. The creation of indices is the norm, like some kind of economic indicator. But when it starts to trade it is a skilful scraping of money from other market participants.
What happens is as follows. The market maker introduces a new index, and begins to provide it as a full-fledged FI. To do this, he fills it with liquidity, thereby attracting other market participants. The FI becomes popular and the market participants do not even think about the quite artificial nature of the FI and continue to trade in it. The market maker should be able to make the index feed itself with liquidity. And the FI Index begins to live almost without its participation. A quite artificial market loop is forming, on which the same market maker and sensible market participants begin to quietly and often take almost risk-free bites out of other people's deposits through arbitrage.
The simplest examples of such artificial FI indices are the Dow Jones index and the RTS index (if it ceases to exist (due to recent events), it will have no effect on the economy, because the FI is a blow).
Forum on trading, automated trading systems and trading strategy testing
Traders Guide: Orders, Prices, Deposits, Funds, Currencies
hrenfx, 2013.05.30 10:32
Among the algorithms in the market there are so-called market maker algorithms. You can probably explain on your fingers from a simple example to a more complex one (by the way, I have written a lot on forexsystems, arbitrageurs and mql5):Imagine you have the task of creating a new symbol to trade. Have people who want to trade it for some reason. What is required of you? You need to form Level2 of your symbol from their bids at any time. I.e. fill the symbol with prices and liquidity. In the beginning, you may make a completely stupid MM algorithm - Level2 does not change. I.e. the client bought or sold, and then you add liquidity to the original Level2. Obviously, such an algorithm would give the owner money all the time. But the problem is that people are not complete idiots, and they won't trade on symbol-constant - there is not even a potential opportunity to make them money.
So, we have to somehow make people make trades. The next dumbest MM-algorithm can be a simple sine wave - Level2 goes up and down. Many people will also lose, but there will be geniuses who will see the pattern and begin to bend the owner of the MM algorithm.
So, one needs to come up with something that would make the MM algorithm to have the maximal difference between those who lose and those who earn. This is where various mathematical models are started to be developed that are far from trivial.
Of course there are a lot of MM algorithms with different owners on the market. Some large owners (major banks) also have insider knowledge - they know which traders (because they are their clients) where they stand and how they trade. So the mat models are well thought out. But the task is always the same - to squeeze as much money out of the meat (ordinary market participants) as possible.
Initial data:
- thousands of robot traders.
- Each robot has the same initial capital.
- no price and, consequently, its history.
- no trading costs (commissions, etc.).
How do you launch thousands of trading robots so that they trade with each other?
Let us set the initial level (not the price) of the average price as one. Let us first launch the robots that will place Limit orders. The Bid and Ask price history will be started. There will be no trades for a while, but prices will move along any trajectory.
If trajectories (two) are horizontal lines, it will mean that the market is completely dead. To revive it, let's launch robots that will take the trajectories out of horizontality. Here we may face the fact that the trajectories infinitely curve to one of the sides. So we need to set (not necessarily explicitly) some boundaries to the trajectories. Now we have more or less tolerable history. At the same time not a single trade has been performed yet.
We launch robots that do their dirty work - trade based on the formed history. The trades are opened. Robots that used to place limit orders may withdraw. Then the price disappears and everything comes to a standstill. Some of such trading robots have to be given disproportionately high initial capital (it increases initial (50/50) probability of profit considerably) compared to other trading robots. Let's call such robots MM-robots. And in their algorithm we will include a guarantee of presence of their requests. Is it possible that MM robots may merge? Of course there is. So, we need some way to guarantee that the money is not plumed for MM robots.
We can go one of two ways. Introduce such trading costs that they would cover a slow drawdown of a MM robot. Or get the insider information on other trading robots and on its basis model and change the price to be positive for the MO. It makes sense to do both.
Introduce initial trade costs for all robots for trades, and transfer them to MM robots' accounts. Initial costs make Koef * MO of MM robots. Of course Koef > 1. Insider has also learned how to use it, so MM robots are slowly draining other robots.
Can we make robots trade with each other indefinitely? It cannot be done, because some of the trading robots will definitely quit the game forever. The profit from losses will be redistributed among other trading robots, which means that the average capitalization will eventually increase, while the number of market participants will decrease.
How to avoid this? There is only one way out - by introducing new trading robots with new capitals. So you always need to feed our market with new money and new robots at some point.
Well, it seems to have taken a breath...
And then people come to us and we show them all this and convince them that it is all real. They put the money in and start trading. Can human trading actions be simulated by a robot? It is difficult to say, because there is no limit to perfection, but it is definitely possible to create a human behavioural model with a high degree of coincidence. So we again get to the stage when only robots are present. This means that our market will breathe and live even with humans.
What simple conclusions can be drawn from even such a primitive as the above-mentioned?
- The market is a tool to take money away in favour of MM robots.
- The market is dead without new participants and their new capital.
- The market is dead without insiders and trading costs.
- Prices are formed on the basis of inside.
I would gladly quote someone other than myself if I came across information on the subject at least once. Perhaps someone should just reread it...
I have already shown a place where there is an empty glass and 0 koms, but somehow no one went there to train
Give me a link here. I yawned.
// just one glass is not very interesting, although there is something. at least a trio of interlinked assets is desirable.
Give me the link here. I yawned.
// just one tumbler is not very interesting, although it is something. at least a trio of interlinked assets is desirable.
there's a bunch of glasses but they are not interrelated and liquidity is low.
here, even bitcoin is there )
there's a bunch of bets but they're not interconnected and liquidity is low
here, there's even bitcoin )
Something about their website barely moves, how do they "provide the parties with the technical ability to guarantee the execution of the transaction"?
And what do they make money on if there is no commission? Charity? Or do their algorithms work?