How has the transition into the Hybird market change your short term trading strat?

Discussion in 'Trading' started by cypresspoint16, Jan 17, 2007.

  1. You've got solid, verifiable proof of that statement ? Funny thing, Lehman Bros is running a quant trading model based on that very premise. It originated from the University of Penn.
    #31     Jan 21, 2007
  2. Not to be a noob, but what do you mean by "hybrid market" and how is it different than before?
    #32     Jan 21, 2007
  3. Singer


    I'm a younger trader, focusing on consistency and increasing my risk gradually as my net worth goes up. But beyond that, I don't need to explain myself to a troll... and I shouldn't need to explain that to ANY trader, really.
    #33     Jan 21, 2007
  4. Singer


    Hmm, that sounds good... if that's the case, then NYSE sweep arbing will stay alive beyond Phase IV rollout. I guess we'll have to wait and see... the hybrid manifesto is an awfully dense read and the hybrid blog is not so good for finding specific info, either.
    #34     Jan 21, 2007
  5. ig0r


    According to hybridtalk, phase III securities are already enabled for trade through. That is, orders are already being routed away for the amount shown at the top of the book -- I've noticed this personally when I go to take on NYS with a single order, for example, and I get some instant NYS fills followed by an ARCA or INET fill; or even a few NYS fills, a pause, and then some more NYS fills where it went to the other market center for a quote that was now gone, and then returned to NYS for a fill.

    As far as I can tell, what you're seeing now with hybrid names is essentially how they will work after reg nms.
    #35     Jan 21, 2007
  6. Where do you think fragmentation of orders came from? Noone wants to show size if all you are gonna get is a bunch of daytraders front running it and preventing it from getting filled. If the guy is showing BIG size, he knows there is a high chance of getting it filled.

    Guys have been making programs pennying size ever since decimalization, especially on Nasdaq. You don't know exactly what Lehman is doing and neither do I, but I highly doubt that leaning on big sizes as a direction indication is the summary of their strategy. It is most likely analysis of bids vs offers on several levels, whether the fills are on bid vs offer and on what level. This is actually not new and is sold by a service which claims to detect institutional accumulation. You do not even know if what Lehman is doing is even successful, and probably won't find out unless you know someone on the inside.

    Everyone sees the size, so how exactly is it an edge? I remember the best longs were the ones where you see mostly big offers, and the daytraders keep trying to short against it, only providing rocket fuel for when the size gets lifted. So then daytraders caught on and started looking for offers getting lifted as an indication to go long and then that stopped working most of the time. In the end, there became little correlation for either side, no easy simple way to read direction & moves based on sizes of the bids & offers. That's competition.
    You can observe stocks on Nasdaq going up with 100-300 share refreshers that alternate between different MMs and ECNs, all while the big sizes are on the offers. And then you can also see stocks go up with big bids coming up and few offers showing, yet the bids do get hit nonstop. There is little correlation and it has been like this for years. Where the big boys and bigger traders start going after the smaller ones is gaming them by faking sizes or simply whacking them to cause panick market orders. With NYSE Hybrid, I know it is even easier done by the guys with order flow info. On Naz this can even be input in the order fill program.

    Anyone who traded off NYSE bids & offers knows what I am talking about. And anyone who was a L2 reader back before the black boxes took over, knows even better.

    Aight there champ, I see you totally missed the central point of my comment. Either you have no sense of humor or you're trying too hard to convince.
    #36     Jan 21, 2007
  7. alot of firms waived software fees if you hit a certain amount of volume per month. that being said, most people probably do not hit those benchmarks anymore and are paying their full software fees, which can add up to over $500 a month.
    #37     Jan 21, 2007
  8. Hydroblunt, you are leaning on the guys self motivational spiel with the facts.

    How ya gonna trade when you can't hullucinate?
    #38     Jan 21, 2007