Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Live4TheRisk

Level II Questions

Recommended Posts

Something that's been bothering me for a while when looking at Level II quotes. I'm still a beginner at this so please forgive me. To be competitive the bidders (BID) want to pay the highest price that will allow them to get filled and the sellers (ASK) want to sell at the cheapest price to get filled. How come AAPL has a market maker called EDGA that doesn't get filled. They are asking 597.98, why wouldn't anyone pick that up. What am I missing here??? On the flip side they are looking to buy at 560.00 so i understand why no one wants to sell them at that price since the market price is ~650 as of today.

 

What gives here?

Level2.jpg.8ced04858c3a5964503d3d72efce0323.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Something that's been bothering me for a while when looking at Level II quotes. I'm still a beginner at this so please forgive me. To be competitive the bidders (BID) want to pay the highest price that will allow them to get filled and the sellers (ASK) want to sell at the cheapest price to get filled. How come AAPL has a market maker called EDGA that doesn't get filled. They are asking 597.98, why wouldn't anyone pick that up. What am I missing here??? On the flip side they are looking to buy at 560.00 so i understand why no one wants to sell them at that price since the market price is ~650 as of today.

 

What gives here?

 

I think you have this the wrong way around. Buyers want to bid the lowest price they can to get filled and sellers want to offer the highest price they can to get filled.

 

I don't know about the market maker. But don't they have certain quote obligations rather than specific trade obligations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you have this the wrong way around. Buyers want to bid the lowest price they can to get filled and sellers want to offer the highest price they can to get filled.

 

I don't know about the market maker. But don't they have certain quote obligations rather than specific trade obligations?

 

Well Level II is just a big auction between market makers. They all will put in a bid and an offer and then they wait until someone acts on that price. Its confusing because as traders we look to buy on the ask and sell on the bid price. But when you look at through the market makers eyes its the total opposite, they are buying on the bid and selling at the offer. Isn't this just so confusing :).

 

So if the market maker puts in a bid they might decide they want to buy at a certain price but are not getting filled, they might up their bid and get filled quicker. This is what i meant in my Original Post. Its called the inside bid (highest price for bidders), the inside ask (lowest price for sellers).

 

This is why I am confused when I look at the inside ask of AAPL. Not sure what you mean by quote obligations or trade obligations, can you explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With the large amount of HFT in the market today, level 2 is not of much use compared to 15/20 years ago. Too many fake quotes.

 

Exactly, i asked my friend that used to be a trader and he explained to me that its a fake/stuck quote so its ok to ignore it.

 

How does HFT trading create these fake quotes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm pretty sure that a Russian resident would say that recessions are real today. Their prime interest rate is 21%, their corporate military contractors are threatening to file bankruptcy, and sticks of butter are kept under lock and key in their grocery stores because shoplifters are stealing it in bulk so they can resell it on the black market. A downturn is cyclical until it turns into a collapse. I really don't think anyone will be buying-into this mess.😬
    • Well said. This principle is highly analogous to trading. Any human can easily click buy or sell when they "feel" that price is about to go up or down. The problem with feeling, commonly referred to as "instinctive" trading, is that it cannot be quantified. And because it cannot be quantified, it cannot be empirically tested. Instinctive trading has the lowest barrier to entry and therefore returns the lowest reward. As this is true for most things in life, this comes as no surprise. Unfortunately, the lowest barrier to entry is attractive to new traders for obvious reasons. This actually applied to me decades ago.🤭   It's only human nature to seek the highest amount of reward in exchange for the lowest amount of work. In fact, I often say that there is massive gray area between efficiency and laziness. Fortunately, losing for a living inspired me to investigate the work of Wall Street quants who refer to us as "fishfood" or "cannonfodder." Although I knew that we as retail traders cannot exploit execution rebates or queues like quants do, I learned that we can engage in automated scalp, swing, and trend trading. The thermonuclear caveat here, is that I had no idea how to write code (or program) trading algorithms. So I gravitated toward interface-based algorithm builders that required no coding knowledge (see human nature, aforementioned). In retrospect, I should never have traded code written by builder software because it's buggy and inefficient. However, my paid subscription to the builder software allowed me to view the underlying source code of the generated trading algo--which was written in MQL language. Due to a lack of customization in the builder software, I inevitably found myself editing the code. This led me to coding research which, in turn, led me to abandoning the builder software and coding custom algo's from scratch. Fast forward to the present, I can now code several trading strategies per day across 2 different platforms. Considering how inefficient manual backtesting is, coding is a huge advantage. When a new trading concept hits me, I can write the algo, backtest it, and optimize it within an hour or so--across multiple exchanges and symbols, and cycle through hundreds of different settings for each input. And then I get pages upon pages of performance metrics with the best settings pre-highlighted. Having said all of this, I am by no means an advanced programmer. IMHO, advanced programmers write API gateways, construct their own custom trading platforms, use high end computers with field programmable gateway array chips, and set up shop in close proximity to the exchanges. In any event, a considerable amount of work is required just to get toward the top of the "fishfood"/"cannonfodder" pool. Another advantage of coding is that it forces me to write trade entry and exit conditions (triggers) in black & white, thereby causing me to think microscopically about my precise trade trigger conditions. For example, I have to decide whether the algo should track the slope, angle, and level of each bar price and indicator to be used. Typing a hard number like 50 degrees of angle into code is a lot different than merely looking at a chart myself and saying, that's close enough.  Code doesn't acknowledge "maybe" nor "feelings." Either the math (code) works (is profitable) or doesn't work (is a loser). It doesn't get angry, sad, nor overly optimistic. And it can trade virtually 24 hours per day, 5 days per week. If you learn to code, you'll eventually reach a point where coding an algo that trades as you intended provides its own sense of accomplishment. Soon after, making money in the market merely becomes a side effect of your new job--coding. This is how I compete, at least for now, in this wide world of trading. I highly recommend it.  
    • VRA Vera Bradley stock watch, pull back to 5.08 support area at https://stockconsultant.com/?VRA
    • MU Micron stock watch, pull back to 102.83 gap support area with high trade quality at https://stockconsultant.com/?MU
    • ACLX Arcellx stock watch, trending at 84.6 support area with bullish indicators at https://stockconsultant.com/?ACLX
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.