I suggest that you explore further the orders on R Trader, they always add features, but don't always document them sadly.
They have time based OCO which are very good if you trade into the close. Also, their orders will be Server Side OCOs.
There is a substantial risk of loss in futures trading. Past Performance is not indicative of future results.
PM with any questions about optimusfutures (800) 771-6748 (561) 367 8686. THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF LOSS IN FUTURES TRADING.
The following user says Thank You to mattz for this post:
Favorite Futures: Currently European and US equities
Posts: 432 since Dec 2013
Thanks: 222 given,
Matt, I agree that this was one of their motivations. Who wouldn't want to get a more professional business setup around them, I would too. But what is also evident is that, the quality of their past performance notwithstanding, their users and their former partners weren't involved in the migration in a professional nor timely manner. And that rightly raises concerns to the users (and potential business partners) that I myself can't just put down to poor handling. I'll explain why here-in, because it is probably unfair to blanketly say 'it's for the big cheque from CQG' without explaining my point fully.
Certainly I agree with you Matt that MarketDelta and Trevor himself have produced some great innovations and have supported their customers well historically, I love their work (and as you say there are many software choice aside from them). However I know in detail the planning and logistics required to perform a complex software migration. Re-working their entire software offering from being based on Linnsoft to the CQG model would've required many steps of work and taken considerable time - incl. negotiation, organisation, planning, development, testing, Q&A to name a few. With the number of components to the project I wouldn't agree that this project moved so fast that it was hard to communicate even the high level details until so late on. Although I agree that can be the case in smaller development pieces.
Clearly managing business relationships means that many professionally involved/close to the parties wouldn't publicly state that the professionalism here was poor, but it was imo and I'll say it. From my experience running enterprise projects (big and small), there are only few reasons that the statement re a major change wouldn't come out:
1. Incompetence - Which knowing the MD team's qualities (as you've spelt out) I'd discount this was the case - although it's always possible of course.
Or the more likely,
2. For strategic cost savings - Which to be honest is a fair consideration if it's done correctly with stakeholder buy-in, as it is a business and not a charity after all.
However, the MarketDelta team keeping it quiet like this indicates that an aim here was to try and get the project largely done without letting their partners or customers know, which implies that earlier in the project cycle there were other motivations (the absolute obvious ones being trying to keep subscriptions from falling early and keeping linnsoft from participating in the planning - together these amount to poor ethical decisions). Imo it's not excusable to trade off your own financial business interests against your customers needs so patently, doing so is just unprofessional in my book (and I'd argue in the book of anyone that has run a true customer centric business).
Perhaps I'm being overly cynical in saying their motivation was for the money from the CQG deal, but it's not at all inaccurate to state it as a potential factor. The course of events suggests other motivations were put ahead of professionalism and reputational interests here. As a technologies & professional services business owner I'd say these integrity considerations are at least on par with consideration of financial interests for running my business. Overall it's the kind of thing that sours the user base more than some vendors would assume. Especially poor when comparing the integrity of the guys at Linnsoft (incl. Dr Linn and Chad Payne) and other innovators in the market. Many professional vendors I've dealt with would never act without thought for their own reputational interests let alone their customers interests. For whatever motive this was done, bottom line it was unprofessional.
Last edited by sands; November 16th, 2016 at 04:45 AM.
The following 3 users say Thank You to sands for this post:
Long time MarketDelta user, was with IRT prior to migration due to need for FootPrint. IRT is an irreplaceable product for those of us that appreciate and need its flexibility.
MarketDelta is white label use of the IRT platform. Linnsoft implemented Trevor's idea of Footprint into IRT, Linnsoft completed vast majority if not all the architecture/coding to create the FootPrint optionality for MarketDelta. Trevor brought a great idea to the forefront (FP), was excellent at marketing and showing its usefulness to new clients, thus driving a good deal of business to Linnsoft. As an outsider looking in, IRT-MarketDelta was a pretty damn good partnership that I wish could have lasted indefinitely. To parallel Sand, the unusual way MarketDelta went about it tells me this was Trevor wanting to differentiate himself from IRT (better control of his own destiny) while CQG saw an opportunity to climb out of the analysis stone-ages. That's just the way it goes.
Still doesn't change the fact MarketDelta users got bent over with logistics of this transition. People have a livelihood based off these tools, pulling this crap leaves a very poor taste in my mouth.
FootPrint is a trademark, not a patent. This is why we will likely see 3rd parties like AMS DeltaPrint use the RTX developer tool to create Footprint replacements. If and when Trevor and Bill's business agreement comes to an end, then Linnsoft would be in their right to start its own version. I will personally be pushing them to do so in earnest as right now it doesn't seem like Trevor & Bill want to make a sincere effort for their end user to be on the same page. A shame.
I picked up the AMS DeltaPrint, installed today. Attached image showing MarketDelta on bottom, AMS DeltaPrint on top. Data is exactly the same as they both pull from same data variables. I'd like to work out some "visual" refinement requests with AMS. Including:
- Multiple Price Highlighter shown in Yellow outline in bottom MarketDelta doesn't print clearly in DeltaPrint.
- full display of footprint bar travel (red/green candle along left edge MD FP bar) not complete in DeltaPrint
Minor stuff, but would like to see this refined. Overall, a suitable inexpensive holdover. Thank you AMS.
Last edited by BlackSwan; November 16th, 2016 at 12:30 AM.
The following 4 users say Thank You to BlackSwan for this post:
You beat me to it with MPH, noticed my setting error late last night. Works aok, thank you.
Can you discuss the variable(s) that pulls data from IRT engine to display bid ask data? I've had one person here on forum and two others outside ask me how AMS performance is live. I can confirm it is spot on with MarketDelta live/high pace session, and understand you are pulling via RTX from the same internal variable that MarketDelta does from IRT core. But I couldn't explain with much more detail. Perhaps futures MD users will be interested in knowing a few more technical details so to put their mind at ease? Tx.
We are using a technique which is inside the SDK of IRT, basically is it a high level abstraction of using the intrabar information to perform calculations on our chart. Can't go into any more detail really. Hope it helps.
Glad you found it is spot on with the MD footprint, happy to hear that.
@BlackSwan @sands : you both were spot on in your analysis. I was also negatively impacted by the changes. We don't use these tools as videogames, we use them professionally. This quick change showed very little respect for their customers. They could get into a litigation with customers, but I guess deltaprint is coming to the rescue, since there is now an easy (and cheaper) path. I also like the idea of dealing directly with Linnsoft now. I always felt the MD community was quite small.
@Nikos Looks quite good! You should check if the bar size prints correctly in all periodicities (min, renko, tick, volume, range, etc.). That' important as I use the open/close/high/low of the bars in my code for signals (I actually hope it's not affecting these internal variable values and it's just a 'display' in the chart issue).
I also wonder if you can make the background transparent also (similar to MD).
Looking forward for the Volume Imbalance implementation!