SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : DAYTRADING Fundamentals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: OZ who wrote (14254)9/24/2001 5:55:32 PM
From: Dan Duchardt  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 18137
 
OZ.

Though I think it would be probably be most accurate to say that at any give price level, there are more market orders than limit orders and the taking out of the static limit orders is what moves the market.

I agree with you that when there are more market orders sent to hit a level than there are limit orders, that's what moves the market. That is by definition, and it's the reason I think Alan expressed some concern about using market orders. But it is often the case that the market is not moved by several orders in succession because there is enough standing limit order volume to absorb the hits. There are still a lot of small volume e'mini orders, and the volume rate is not all that high, averaging around 10 contracts per second for ES and less than the for NQ. (The average ES trade size today was about 4.5 contracts and for NQ it was about 3.5) I know booters has had good luck with market orders in the past, precisely because the rate the market orders come in is usually not enough to slip the price more than a tick. If you are right about the move, it is often more important to get in than to get the very best price. There is always the risk that at some point you are going to take a hit on a bad fill, but it really doesn't happen that often, or at least it did not in the past. Maybe with a whole flock of new futures traders migrating because of margin rules, it will change.

The only exception to this are marketable limit orders but most software systems make those hard to place and get filled quick enough anywhere other than the original breakout.

I think the opposite is true. I'm usually not brave enough to risk the market order and use marketable limit orders most of the time. The only time I don't get filled is on a breakout when the market runs away from me. The brave souls who sent the market orders get in, and at least the early ones are rewarded. I really think there is far greater risk in just being wrong about the direction the market is going, than there is is getting whacked by the slippage.

When there is a news shock, one can see how the market orders zap all of the limit orders out of the book as there is a relative vacuum of limit orders to take the massive flow of market orders.

Yes, but you are at risk of this sort of thing going against you regardless of how you got into the position. IMHO, there is far greater risk in being on the wrong side of a move because of a surprise, or just reading the market wrong than there is from using market orders to enter. I'd be willing to trade a lot of entry slippage for some of the moves that went "the wrong way".

Dan