Instead of asking them to change the tick size, how about asking if they will limit the price movement to the big contract. The money being made arbing the ES is not being made on the spread. The ES is constantly being pushed one or two points away from the big SP contract. Those with the resources can then buy/sell big contracts and arb the ES. It's total bullshit IMO. That accounts for most of the whipsaw action. The big boys buy the ES, run the price ahead of the pit, then short the ES, and cover instantly on the big SP contract. Then the ES whips back to the real price. I don't understand how this is allowed.
Specialists begging for pennies after years of an embarrassment of riches. Boo hoo. Fact is, decimalization saves investors money. Who really cares if specialists and market makers hurt? They really do not create anything anyway.
I gotta go with Pa(b)st Prime on this one. I was in favor of stock decimalation at the time the debate was raging, although I personally thought they went a little over board. I would have liked to have seen 0.05 increments down to say $5 priced stocks then maybe penny ticks. I don't trade stocks any more but if memory serves I was thinking some ECN's support sub penny increments? To me that's just plain silly. I was opposed to the NQ tick reduction, but I do still trade it. I'm opposed to the ZB and ZN tick reductions. I like being able to take a tick, cover commissions AND make a profit. If the ES tick size was 0.50 I could maybe see an argument for 0.25 ticks. I don't normally use the DOM during RTH but I will look at it during the slower/thinner AH session. Seems to me a tick reduction in ES will render the DOM less useful and at 5 levels deep maybe even near useless. It seems to me that smaller tick sizes in general make scalping less and less worthwhile. I suppose at the end of the day the number of market participants, open interest and money on the side lines will remain the same. Smaller tick sizes will just spread it out over more and more price levels. In this case I personally don't see any significant advantage of that to us the retail trader. If your not profitable with ES 0.25 ticks, 0.10 ticks is not going to improve your situation.
I do believe they call that "arbitrage". It happens on every product that trades pit and electronic/multiple X`s. If you dont like it, cease trading the product or grow your account and get involved. Thats just the way it is, was and always will be. Are you complaining when your profit target offer/bid gets lifted/hit by the "big boys" while they game it? I vote No.
from listening to SP squawk, it sounds like the big S&P trys to mimic the ES by trading at .2-.3, .5, and .7-.8 you get ignored if you try to "squeeze" in
That would be the point. Smaller spreads on the ES would end the careers of many scalpers just like decimallization ended the careers of those who used to scalp stocks. I have no problem with that.
I understand your point, I just don't share your opinion. As I had noted in an earlier post, I am not enamored of 1-tick profits, however, when I choose to exit, I wish to do so as cheaply as possible. I would have thought that most people would share this view, with the single exception of 1-tick scalpers. As for your DOM argument, which Pabst has also raised, is there a reason that the CME is married to a depth of 5? Seems to me that a reasonable case could be made to at least increase the depth to correspond to an adjusted tick size. What would be the CME's rationale for not accommodating such a reasonable request? (I'm not familiar with exchange politics and such, so please forgive my naiveté.) Personally, I don't look at "depth" because of the mind games that people engage in with their limit orders, so I really don't care one way or the other. Frankly, I just can't get caught up in the guessing and second-guessing about transitory orders that have not yet been filled. I'll leave that to you pros.
I voted no. If you want a $5 tick, trade YM or NQ. Then when you're confident enough, trade ES at $12.50 a tick.