I believe the reason for this is that CTS gets "unfiltered" data whereas other platforms get packets of data. The unfiltered data takes more time to update in the DOM but the orders are processed the same. The downside to filtered (packet) data is that you will not get accurate bid/ask data at the individual tick level. This is the primary reason T4 is considered a "professional" platform and Ninjatrader (among others) is a "retail" platform. The downside to unfiltered data is that the printed price on the DOM lags that actual market, however if you place an order it is processed in real time regardless of what the DOM is showing. For example, in a fast market when the DOM is lagging and you place a limit order the DOM may seem to "trade around" your price but in fact the actual market has moved beyond the reach of your order.
I'm don't have an opinion on which is better for the retail trader yet.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires. Seek discipline and find your liberty. - Frank Herbert
The following 2 users say Thank You to Surly for this post:
What you are saying might be true for Ninja, Sierra etc but I have "Battle-tested" OEC during the recent flash crash so I don't think what you are saying applies to OEC. I ll try to make a video of OEC vs T4 sometime if I can get a reliable video capture during a #'s release-the only problem is that I generally trade the volatility so I have to give up that to make the video but I will try at some point in time. That will clarify a lot of things I am trying to say when you place two dom's side by side.
The following user says Thank You to garyboy275 for this post:
I'm not sure I want to jump into this, but, I sort of agree with @xelaar about the general subject of tools: I found T4 to be good enough, as in, when I knew I had a trade, I just entered it into the T4 DOM, no big deal. It went in. I had a position, and maybe I made money, maybe not. (I used NT to make the decisions, because I liked and was used to the tools I had there.... But the same could be said for other platforms -- what you're used to matters.)
Not to say that there isn't anything better than T4 -- in fact, it's pretty limited. But it won't make the difference between whether you are profitable or not. No disrespect intended, but that's not your edge.
Basically, it's not the platform that makes you money. (And I agree that some are better than others. And I'm not thrilled with T4. But it works well enough.)
I don't mean any antagonism to anyone, or to their preferences, it's just my observation.
The following 3 users say Thank You to bobwest for this post:
In my opinion, the true value of T4 vs. other platforms is server side placement of stop and OCO orders. This means that, once orders are placed and a position is entered, the corresponding stop and linked profit target are held at the server. Seems obvious, but what does this really mean to the trader, or in this case, the backer (TST)? It means that once the trader has an OPEN position, risk is predetermined and measurably controlled without any additional input from the trader. Once the connected target or stop order is hit and filled,the OPEN position will be closed, the trader will be flat, and no orders will remain on the DOM (unless the trader has resting orders, above or below the market, which per TSTs requirement are resting OCO orders, and limited to the maximum allowable size of the related account) But why is that so important? RISK control. If you are trading electronically, you are remotely accessing the markets, and in TSTs case, these traders are remote from all around the world. Every trader has connection risk and lag risk per their individual geographical location and ISP. Not to mention life risk (trader has emergency and has to step away from computer - this could be anything from a bathroom or smoke break, a phone call, a diaper change, to a heart attack - you get the idea). Also add in hardware or software concerns and you begin to get the real picture of the enormous risk involved.
So as an individual trader, or as a backer, how do you attempt to address this risk? First, by limiting any newly opened trades to be generated only as OCO orders and second, make certain those orders are held at the server. Which in T4s case is right at the exchange and is privy to all the advantages that entails.
Has your internet ever gone down? Has your trading ever been interrupted by life? Ever had a computer hardware/software malfunction?
If anything interferes with a traders ability to manage an open position, and no corresponding OCO is there(at the server) to manage that position - you have exposure to some serious RISK.
The following 3 users say Thank You to John32 for this post:
@John32, I agree with you. Just to be clear though, this is platform-dependent. Sierra Chart, when using CTS, also supports server-side OCO. So this is not just a platform feature, it's a CTS feature. Also, while Rithmic supports server-side OCO, Sierra does not support this capability, for example, so both the broker and the platform must support this.
Something that only T4 has, as far as I have found, is the "AutoOCO" order type. This predefines the entry, and a bracketed stop/limit all in one order. This atomizes the order, so that there is no way a position can be in the market without a stop in the market as well, at least under normal operating conditions.
While one danger is in having a local OCO, an equally large risk (if not greater) is having an OCO bracket that is created locally by the software at the time of the entry order. For example, placing an attached order / ATM / etc. to an entry order that is executed locally when the primary order is filled. Sometimes traders will place their entry orders far in advance, but the ATM/attached orders are only to be created locally. In the event of an internet failure, what you will have is an entry order at the broker/exchange, with no stop in place.
IMO, CTS's AutoOCO is a great way to ensure that the position is fully covered. However, the way for any platform to do this is very simple: place the entry order and stop order, and only after the position is filled create an OCO bracket and then cancel the existing stop order. This ensures that no matter what happens, you will have limit and stop orders held non-locally (for most all data feeds anyway), and then you can manage the position with a bracket afterward. While race conditions exist with this approach, and while only CTS's AutoOCO can atomize the order and remove the risk completely, the above is a very good solution that I'm afraid few people take because they prize their "ATM" and for some reason are too lazy to input two orders (entry and stop) when they want to initiate a position.
Last edited by josh; July 14th, 2013 at 01:31 AM.
The following 5 users say Thank You to josh for this post:
I am also glad to see Ninja is getting close. I have an additional question regarding Ninja licensing too. I'm curious if I have Ninja installed, will I change my current license for the combine or install a second instance of Ninja? I know I can not run two instances of the same Ninja, but I have not tried to install to two different directories and run two separate copies.
At this point in time, a license key for Ninja is included with your Combine deposit. if you became funded utilizing Ninja, you would then be responsible for having your own license key.
Last edited by victoria; July 22nd, 2013 at 11:53 AM.
The following user says Thank You to victoria for this post:
You are provided a separate license key for use in the combine...that license key enables the TopStep data feed 'Big tick/cts" in the data feed provider window under account connections...It is not visible under your currrent license key....if you are funded and trade through NT...you will use your own license key at that point...I am told....
when you reenter your existing license key after combine or during...your existing account connections are recalled.
The following 2 users say Thank You to 9baller for this post:
I am not certain if this quote was directed at me or not but for one it is a wise ass insensitive remark....two you are making assumptions...and three you obviously are not familair with NT because if you were you would not use T4....
Doesn’t cancel bracket orders if you exit @ market or limit order…they must be cancelled manually
Doesn’t adjust quantities if I scale in/out of position with OCO orders in the que…
Doesn’t adjust stop/ exit quantities if a manually placed stop is working….and I scale in/out…
When clicking on stop orders they disappear….and stop goes invisible on drag
Before each action you have to highlight the action buttons prior to execution (T.S.SL.OCO.etc)
IMO the risk of being double filled/accidentally reversing or having a naked position is too high....
SC is overoptioned IMO....don't like it either....
after using NT for several years why would I want to fumble around with inferior tools and potentially waste a combine deposit and professional capiatlization, when NT works perfectly and my command of the software is automatic....why you think so many are waiting for it....why have "fat finger stress" trading is hard enough
The following user says Thank You to 9baller for this post:
Almost all talk about which ladder is better can be summed up this way:
1.Unconscious incompetence The individual does not understand or know how to do something and does not necessarily recognize the deficit. They may deny the usefulness of the skill. The individual must recognise their own incompetence, and the value of the new skill, before moving on to the next stage. The length of time an individual spends in this stage depends on the strength of the stimulus to learn.
2.Conscious incompetence Though the individual does not understand or know how to do something, he or she does recognize the deficit, as well as the value of a new skill in addressing the deficit. The making of mistakes can be integral to the learning process at this stage.
3.Conscious competence The individual understands or knows how to do something. However, demonstrating the skill or knowledge requires concentration. It may be broken down into steps, and there is heavy conscious involvement in executing the new skill.
4.Unconscious competence The individual has had so much practice with a skill that it has become "second nature" and can be performed easily. As a result, the skill can be performed while executing another task. The individual may be able to teach it to others, depending upon how and when it was learned.
The following 2 users say Thank You to John32 for this post: