Unfair Timber Hill charge for IB-unbundled pricing

Discussion in 'Interactive Brokers' started by ggoom, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. My apologies, but if you have a better suggestion than who we have contacted in IB, we are game. Ready for a PM?
    #21     Mar 19, 2006
  2. ggoom


    I thought someone in IB like Def would provide his logic/explanation. As I said twice already, I am not criticizing IB's overall system. Even if IB is close to the best, we should address/discuss the issue if it is possible to improve/correct certain things, right?

    stock777, How much good money will you bet that I am a losing trader? If you escrow the money I am willing to show/prove my trading records. You will bet a large sum of money because you are a great winning trader and a man who keep his words, right?

    Of course, RedManPlus. IB does not cross customers' orders, your orders are executed only if TMBRs are already NBBO. Your first order should be sent to NYSE based on the SMART algorithm.

    You 'very occasionally' make this dumb mistakes, and they are not crossed by TMBR. So you have a proof that my orders are not executed by TMBR? I see why you make such dumb mistakes and then so proud of saying that to us.

    By the way, I am not complaining the TMBR fill. I love it. It is fast and NBBO. I just think its fee is too high compared to others and considering their SMART algorithm. If the SMART algorithm is really smart it should send my order to the CHEAPEST considering all the associated fees.

    I'm just saying that
    "When there are cheaper ECNs at NBBO send my orders to them not to TMBR, which charges more." Is this so hard to understand? Is it bashing IB?
    #22     Mar 19, 2006
  3. Similarly, the smart route costs option traders money each month for cancellations because it keeps routing to CBOE?? and it seems IB is constantly filled to the brink with CBOE cancellations. Why can't it be routed elsewhere and save us all the charges? Does IB get some benefit by routing to CBOE specifically?

    Of course the IB PR volunteers are going to say anyone who doesn't remove CBOE from the smart route for each order is an id**t anyway.

    P.S. I wanted to say this in private to IB, but I don't think IB would listen unless others complain.
    #23     Mar 19, 2006
  4. zdreg


    is it not the case that you can preference the order to one (contra) party but not just eliminate one party?
    #24     Mar 19, 2006
  5. No, this isn't true. I never sent such a PM to IB.
    #25     Mar 19, 2006
  6. Some valid complaints have been posted against IB. I agree that many unfair and inaccurate complaints have also been posted against IB. This provides absolutely no justification whatsoever for your childish, selfish, and anti-social behaviour. An intelligent and informative debate requires that people focus on the topic, and on attacking each other's arguments, rather than on attacking each other personally. If you think a complaint is invalid, you should demonstrate this by making a rational argument, supported by evidence, and without your constant repetition of the same themes that people who think differently from you are "losing traders", "idiots", "hysterical", etc. I say you don't have the ability to argue rationally, you are jealous of others who do, you want to demonstrate that you matter, and so, you attack people. Most of your comments, if not all of them, amount to nothing more than a small, self-absorbed child, attempting to convince himself that he is superior to others. Baron did not create this website to indulge your pathetic efforts to feel good about yourself. His business model is to foster intelligent discussion and debate. You are an obstacle to that goal, and so, I am hopeful that in the near future, Baron grabs you up by the scruff of your little neck, shows you the door, and bans you from this website.

    I encourage all who want intelligent debate to complain to the moderators about the need to crack down on stock777 and others who use personal attacks and insults to block intelligent discussions about important topics.
    #26     Mar 19, 2006
  7. zdreg


    be careful. you may get what you wish for with unfortunate results. some moderators with their crackdowns limit legitimate but lively conversations,
    #27     Mar 19, 2006
  8. Yes, I agree this is a danger, and I have seen it occur. I think, however, that the primary threat, to worthwhile discussions on EliteTrader, is not the mistakes moderators sometimes make, but is instead the constant stream of off-topic abuse from people like stock777.
    #28     Mar 19, 2006
  9. Apologies.
    In your PM box to me on Feb 16 you said "I have designed and was thinking of proposing a new auto-liquidation algorithm to incorporate the lessons learned from your case". I had assumed you did something.
    #29     Mar 19, 2006
  10. FredBloggs

    FredBloggs Guest

    ggoom - with all due respect, i got the idea s777 was calling me a loser - not you - cos i was 'bashing' ib.

    i agree with jimr.

    all i did was point out that there seems to be a conflict of interest here, and that there seems to be no valid reason (as you yourself have realized) on why timber hill should charge more for execution.

    well, i thought that trading should be treated as a business, and as timber hills shares are the same as anyone elses shares i can see little reason to charge more. there is very little 'value added' in the commoditized business of order execution, which is why this is a very pertinent and valid issue that you have raised.

    seeing as s777 is clearly such a winner in life, he could explain to all us 'morons' the reasons!

    obviously s777 doesnt think trading should be treated as a business, but a 'game' perhaps?????

    this incident reminds me of e-signals inability to explain why they have an additional fee slapped on to receive futures data. often silence speaks louder than words!

    anyway, what do i know? im just a loser who treats my trading as a business and refuses to let the mainstream players take my money for no reason! geez - what a sucker i am!!!!

    #30     Mar 19, 2006