Wow, what an IB-apologist version of events. Convenient how you ignore the fact that TWS did not give any feedback about the double set of orders and that due to software bugs, mismanaged the orders eventually lead to orphan order being revived some 7 hours later by the purely random chance event of a TWS disconnect. Nope, all you focus on is the double click - what a joke. The double-click wasn't the problem here in case you missed it. How TWS handled the double-click was the problem. If TWS had given indication about the double set of orders at the time they were submitted the OP could have managed his mistake at that point. Simply boiling this down to, "the OP double-clicked so its his fault" is ludicrous but I expect nothing less from the IB zealout community.
So when you press the mouse you don't realize whether you single or double clicked it? If you ignore the issue of what the customer did, then you are ignoring an important part of the puzzle. The only important issue remaining is whether the customer knew he had this position on or not. If he did and waited til after the news to try to game the position, then he should not be made whole. And it seems to me you can never know whether he knew he had the position on unless you were looking over his shoulder at the time of the incident. However, if we assume that this person is a responsible trader, can we not assume that he checked his positions upon logging in like any normal trader would do? Seems like a tough call to me, but in the end I would say reimburse the customer for some but not all of the loss. As for people saying "52k is a drop in the bucket for IB," that seems to be irrelevant to how this should play out.
I'm not ignoring the double-click event however as I said before it isnt the double-click mistake that resulted in this mess - its how TWS/IB handled the double-click: It did not acknowledge the double-click so the user had no way of knowing It did not display any indication of the double set of orders that were submitted It created an orphan order that sat around like an unexploded bomb waiting for some random time to go off There was clearly either design or implementation flaws in IB's servers that allowed this "timing" situation to occur. Properly coded systems do not suffer from "timing" flaws - that shows whoever wrote this did not do their job correctly. Again, if the double-click was properly handled by TWS the user would have realized what had happened and managed it at that time. Since TWS failed to provide any feedback and concealed the problem with this hidden order that only manifested itself hours later it is unreasonable to blame the user.
Show me the documentation that says when you double click an order submission that a phantom order will be created that you are unaware of and cannot do anything about. Apparently in your world its ok if random undocumented non-deterministic results occur from an extra mouse click. Spin indeed.
I agree with you on this. The double click was evidently improperly handled in TWS. But again, it all starts with the double click. And I would guess we all expect something to take place when we double click. It's not something I do on my transmit button. How about you? OldTrader
I didn't say that and you know it. I said it all started with the double click. At a minimum though...I would have expected a double order, which is exactly why I don't double click my transmit button. What do you expect here? An idiot proof piece of software? What...we design some software that does nothing when you click in rapid succession so that all the idiots are safe? Then when you DO want to make a couple of rapid trades, INTENTIONALLY, nothing happens because the software has been idiot-proofed. OldTrader
If I hit the transmit button twice I expect two sets of orders to be created - that is not what happened. If that had happened then the OP could have dealt with it by canceling orders and closing out positions he did not mean to enter (at his own expense). The problem wasnt the double-click because the OP could have handled his mistake if TWS/IB had processed the double-click correctly. The problem was how the double click and the resulting orders were mismanaged on the backend by IB.
How it started is irrelevent, you are blaming the victim. If I pull over on the highway because I ran out of gas and then someone who falls asleep at the wheel slams into my car parked on the shoulder whose fault is it - mine because I let myself run out of gas? The OP made a simple, common mistake. It is a mistake that everyone has made at one time or another and one that properly designed software can deal with. The software doesnt need to be idiot proof - it needs to handle all situations correctly and consistently. What if the OP had wanted to submit two sets of orders (had clicked twice on purpose)? The software did not do what he asked it to do, even if it was not his intention - it misinterpreted the second order request as a modification of the first which is obviously incorrect. You yourself in the above quote said what you expected the software to do in this situation at a minimum- and it did not do that. Therefore you must agree that the software did not function properly. If it did create a double order we wouldnt be talking about it now.