OEC Histogram, Faulty Volume

[Guest Tresor]

Brownie, any news on how OEC might succeed with the new and better data feed?

[Ranger 10]

Any deadline / EPA for fixing this issue? 1 month / 2 months / 3 months / 6 months / 12 months?

I used to be an OEC customer. When their datafeed started costing me trades, I queried them. In fact, I was so pissed that I contacted their CEO and VP of operations via e-mail to express my opinion of them rolling-out a new product without sufficiently validating its reliability. I got a response from both but the problems continue.

 

Their datafeed is simply a deal breaker. I love OECs platform; it's more stable than NT in my opinion and their DOM is great but if you can't get reliable information or their servers are down, it's useless.

 

I received the same answers as posted here previously but that was back in Oct-Dec09.

 

Here's what they put on their website - it seems partially untrue based on my experience.

 

I have a Zen Fire connection now .... it's awesome. Unfiltered and reliable.

 

Active Traders

 

Active traders know their success is built on a foundation of Technology and Service. OEC was built on these principles. The OEC Trader was built by active traders for active traders.

 

OEC offers the keys to unlocking your successful trading strategy:

 

Speed – Our Direct Connections to the exchanges and cutting edge technology ensure the fastest executions and confirmations. We understand that for active traders, milliseconds matter.

 

Reliability – Our investment in our data center and infrastructure means you never have to worry about down-time and broken connections.

 

Functionality – The OEC Trader is the market leader in cutting edge functionality that gives you an edge in your trading with no software fees.

 

Support – OEC offers professional, efficient 24 Software Support and a 24 Hour Trade Desk to answer any questions you may have.

 

Technical Highlights

The OEC Trader provides a rich set of functionality not commonly found in one trading platform today. Learn more about our Electronic Trading System – OEC Trader

[FulcrumTrader 10]

Just as a heads up......MANY broker supplied data feeds/platforms (Transact AT, OEC, NT with Zenfire, etc) have gone to the bottom of the dumpster since the recent CME data output increases.

 

It seems that many of the platform/charting/datafeed vendors/brokers were NOT properly prepared for the changes that were made in the CME data output per unit of time. It also seems that much of the platform/charting software architecture for these various vendors/brokers can't handle the increased data flow, and reliability issues have expanded in recent months for many.

 

Data drops from the data feed flow as it interfaces with a platform/charting application is a problem I see with many. It looks as if some in the broker and vendor world were not "ahead of the power curve" to make sure their platform/charting apps could handle the changes to the data flow from the CME. I have not heard of any reliability issues with XTrader 7 and CQG since the CME data flow increase......unfortunately, the once rock solid NT6.5 w/Zenfire feed has even at times been lacking in the reliabilty department.

 

My point in this matter is we all trade at our own risk, so think out all aspects of your operational trading requirements since the game has obviously changed again.

[paolfili 10]

Fulcrum do you think that this kind of "tricks" (in smaller volume sizes best hidden in the tap) can ,in some way,invalidate your Grab Inventory Strategy to read "The Market"?

In the last weeks do you confirm your methodology principles or there is some basic change In The Market microstructure?

Do you think there is a way to "track" this kind of events to eventually "sanitize" the data?

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Just as a heads up......MANY broker supplied data feeds/platforms (Transact AT, OEC, NT with Zenfire, etc) have gone to the bottom of the dumpster since the recent CME data output increases.

 

It seems that many of the platform/charting/datafeed vendors/brokers were NOT properly prepared for the changes that were made in the CME data output per unit of time. It also seems that much of the platform/charting software architecture for these various vendors/brokers can't handle the increased data flow, and reliability issues have expanded in recent months for many.

 

Data drops from the data feed flow as it interfaces with a platform/charting application is a problem I see with many. It looks as if some in the broker and vendor world were not "ahead of the power curve" to make sure their platform/charting apps could handle the changes to the data flow from the CME. I have not heard of any reliability issues with XTrader 7 and CQG since the CME data flow increase......unfortunately, the once rock solid NT6.5 w/Zenfire feed has even at times been lacking in the reliabilty department.

 

My point in this matter is we all trade at our own risk, so think out all aspects of your operational trading requirements since the game has obviously changed again.

[FulcrumTrader 10]

Fulcrum do you think that this kind of "tricks" (in smaller volume sizes best hidden in the tap) can ,in some way,invalidate your Grab Inventory Strategy to read "The Market"?

In the last weeks do you confirm your methodology principles or there is some basic change In The Market microstructure?

Do you think there is a way to "track" this kind of events to eventually "sanitize" the data?

 

Thanks

Market order flow distribution patterns are all the same as before....it is just the amount of DATA provided from the CME has changed. There is no change at all in the markets, just a change in the "retail" type tools to look at those markets (as a result of the increased amount of data granularity).

 

Markets trade between zones of resting inventory, and it will take some extremely drastic changes in the actual markets to ever change this on going fundamental.

[Guest Tresor]

My point in this matter is we all trade at our own risk, so think out all aspects of your operational trading requirements since the game has obviously changed again.

 

Yes, we trade at our own risk, but the risks on a traders' side are much greater than on a broker's side. If you trade based on bad data like e.g. OEC's data the only thing you can do is to loose your money.

 

The broker always wins. If a broker knows it provides bad data (I never saw anyone won any money on bad data), it can simply bet against a trader (which the law joyfully allows for) and earn even more on a trader's stupidity / ignorance. I do not say OEC behaves such an unethical way on purpose. I do believe it is a technical problem rather than ethical on their end.

 

Guys, if there is a parallel world I hope that I am a broker in that world. And I hope I am smart enough to provide my clients / suckers with bad data and bet against them :rofl:

 

Best business in the (parallel) world to be a broker...

[brownsfan019 17]

1-27-10 Update

 

I haven't forgotten about you guys, just wanted to get the information together.

 

The first issue apparently is how all of this is reported from the CME. This is from their website:

FOR PRODUCTS THAT ARE TRADED IN BOTH REGULAR TRADING HOURS (RTH) AND ELECTRONIC TRADING HOURS (ETH) THE INFORMATION REPRESENTED ON THIS PAGE FOR OPENING RANGE, HIGH, LOW, CLOSING RANGE, SETTLEMENT PRICE AND VOLUME REPRESENTS RTH ACTIVITY ONLY. NOTE: LIFE OF CONTRACT HIGH AND LOW REPRESENTS BOTH RTH AND ETH. RTH VOLUME REFLECTS PIT TRADING, BLOCK TRADES AND CASH-FOR-FUTURES ONLY.

ETH REPRESENTS GLOBEX VOLUME TRANSACTIONS FROM THE GLOBEX® ELECTRONIC SESSION ONLY. VOLUME OR OPEN INTEREST (BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE LAST DAY OF TRADING) MAY BE AFFECTED BY: CASH FOR FUTURES, SPREADS, AND PRIOR DAYS’ CLEARED TRADES (OUT-TRADES), POSITION ADJUSTMENTS, OPTION EXERCISES, POSITIONS IN DELIVERY, OR POSITIONS IN A CASH SETTLEMENT CYCLE

. PRODUCT LISTINGS REPRESENT CONTRACTS WITH PRICE/VOLUME ACTIVITY AND/OR HAVE ESTABLISHED OPEN INTEREST. PRODUCTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO TRADE, BUT ARE INACTIVE, DO NOT APPEAR IN THIS REPORT. LEGEND: B=BID, A=ASK, N=NOMINAL, P=POST SETTLEMENT SESSION, #=NEW CONTRACT HIGH PRICE, *=NEW CONTRACT LOW PRICE, R=RECORD VOLUME OR OPEN INTEREST. SETTLEMENT PRICES ARE DETERMINED BY CME RULE 813.

So issue #1 is how the CME is handling all of this. You would think this would be simple and easy, but I'm guessing there's some neat reason why they do this...

 

 

Now, back to OEC - here is what I was told directly from the source:

 

From our CME data connection we are using ticks to build Histograms and Charts, but a different source from the quote feed to update our Quotes. We are close to a decision point as to which number we want to standardize on. API and SIM have the most up-to-date changes. PROD will be next once we have made a final decision on what we standardize on.

The issue there appears to be that OEC is using 2 sources and b/c those sources view and handle the data from the CME a bit differently, which we can see has some issues, you are seeing the end result.

 

I'm assuming (and this is my opinion) that once OEC decides to use 1 source, then your issue presented here will go away.

 

With all that said, this all comes down to how the CME is reporting the data. In the simplest form, it's not crisp and clean. And unfortunately the data vendors go out and get the data, do whatever they do and then pass it on to us. And apparently there is not a standard on how to do this part either. It would be much easier on everyone if 1) the CME made this an easy process and/or 2) there was a standardized way to gather this data across the board.

[Guest Tresor]

From our CME data connection we are using ticks to build Histograms and Charts, but a different source from the quote feed to update our Quotes.

 

And the different source (whatever it means) that is used to feed their Quotes is the correct one! I run tests with OEC paltform: I compared exchanges' official volume data (CME, Eurex and others) and ''the different'' source is the only correct one real-time and at day-end. E.g. I measured the real-time volume on selected instruments reported by Eurex and the volume reported by Eurex matched 100% the volume reported by OEC Quotes. Ergo (i) the data transmitted in Quotes is the correct one and (ii) the data tramsmitted in Charts and in OEC data feed for third party charting softwares is wrong!

 

We are close to a decision point as to which number we want to standardize on. API and SIM have the most up-to-date changes. PROD will be next once we have made a final decision on what we standardize on. The issue there appears to be that OEC is using 2 sources and b/c those sources view and handle the data from the CME a bit differently, which we can see has some issues, you are seeing the end result.

 

I'm assuming (and this is my opinion) that once OEC decides to use 1 source, then your issue presented here will go away.

 

Not that I am complaing but one source is obviously f**ked up and the other one is the correct one. I wonder how much time it takes to decide which one should be used accross the platform and standardized :crap:

 

Brownsfan, please make sure they also remember to fix other issues, e.g. incorrect time stamp (If I remember it well their time is shifted by 1 minute either backwards or forward) and missing bars.

 

Regards

[brownsfan019 17]

You'll need to provide examples of the timestamp and missing bars issue b/c I have not seen those.

[Guest Tresor]

You'll need to provide examples of the timestamp and missing bars issue b/c I have not seen those.

 

Missing bars' screenshot enclosed. Incorrect time stamp screenshot enclosed (OEC can check this issue when they connect their data feed to any third party charting platform).

 

I wouldn't like to get into details but OEC have full screenshot documentation and excel documentation (data) of what is wrong with their platform and their data feed).

[brownsfan019 17]

You do realize that OEC is showing the start of the bar; whereas some charting platforms show the close, right?

 

Could that explain the 1 min difference on a 1 minute chart?

 

If you hit refresh is that 1 min bar still not there?

[Guest Tresor]

You do realize that OEC is showing the start of the bar; whereas some charting platforms show the close, right?

 

Could that explain the 1 min difference on a 1 minute chart?

 

No.

 

If you hit refresh is that 1 min bar still not there?

 

Still not there in OEC Charts, and still not here in MultiCharts after refreshing, from what I remember. I tested their demo in April last year. I reported OEC on the bugs. The bugs were acknowledged by their tech staff and I was told the bugs would be fixed soon.

 

If they somehow still lack the knowledge of what is wrong with their platform and data feed, my suggestion is that they announce a ''bug'' contest among their employees. The employee who finds the largest number of bugs will be awarded $1k or a handshake by CEO.

 

No sarcasm intended. This is the quickest and cheapest way for any company to find out what is wrong with their products.

[brownsfan019 17]

No.

 

So to clarify - your OEC chart shows a time of 16:23 and MC shows 16:24 and we know that OEC shows the START time of the candle and MC shows the END time of the candle... but there is another problem here?

 

Please explain how OEC's chart is incorrect with their timestamping knowing that they show the START of the candle.

 

Still not there in OEC Charts, and still not here in MultiCharts after refreshing, from what I remember. I tested their demo in April last year. I reported OEC on the bugs. The bugs were acknowledged by their tech staff and I was told the bugs would be fixed soon.

 

If they somehow still lack the knowledge of what is wrong with their platform and data feed, my suggestion is that they announce a ''bug'' contest among their employees. The employee who finds the largest number of bugs will be awarded $1k or a handshake by CEO.

 

No sarcasm intended. This is the quickest and cheapest way for any company to find out what is wrong with their products.

 

I run OEC charts daily and I rarely have any bars missing. When it does happen it usually backfills when it comes back online - whether it's my outage or theirs.

[Guest Tresor]

So to clarify - your OEC chart shows a time of 16:23 and MC shows 16:24 and we know that OEC shows the START time of the candle and MC shows the END time of the candle... but there is another problem here?

 

Please explain how OEC's chart is incorrect with their timestamping knowing that they show the START of the candle.

 

If you connect OEC data feed to any third party software that supports OEC data feed, you will see that with OEC data feed the session's start and the session's end are INCORRECT by 1 minute. Ergo (i) there is something wrong with the time stamping of this data feed and (ii) third party softwares are CORRECT (they can't be all wrong!).

 

If you connect any other data feed to any third party software, you will see that the session's start and the session's end are CORRECT, therefore (i) third party softwares are CORRECT and (ii) other data feeds are CORRECT too.

 

If OEC promotes its data feed it should stick to generally accepted standards of time stamping or they should cease to offer their data feed to third party platforms.

 

I run OEC charts daily and I rarely have any bars missing. When it does happen it usually backfills when it comes back online - whether it's my outage or theirs.

 

Then you have been lucky. I was not lucky during the period when I demo-tested OEC platform. And as far as my opinion goes, trading should not be about being lucky...

[brownsfan019 17]

Sounds like you've made your concerns known to OEC; therefore I shall let it be. You can't make everyone happy. Ergo a) wait to see if OEC can do what you need or 2) use a software that will meet your needs or iii) deal with the 1 minute off thing. If you understand how it's timestamped, then this is a moot point.

 

PS

You are welcome for the update too!

 

[brownsfan019 17]

When I have another update, I will post here. Till then I'm not interested in debating about the OEC timestamping since it's pretty obvious how it is handled.

[brownsfan019 17]

Thread closed till James decides what to do w/ these off topic posts.