▲ | hermitdev a day ago | |||||||
> Would you rather have a HFT trade go correctly and a few nanoseconds slower or a few nanoseconds faster but with some edge case bugs related to variable initialisation ? As someone who works in the HFT space: it depends. How frequently and how bad are the bad-trade cases? Some slop happens. We make trade decisions with hardware _without even seeing an entire packet coming in on the network_. Mistakes/bad trades happen. Sometimes it results in trades that don't go our way or missed opportunities. Just as important as "can we do better?" is "should we do better?". Queue priority at the exchange matters. Shaving nanoseconds is how you get a competitive edge. > I would posit is it things like network latency that would dominate. Everything matters. Everything is measured. edit to add: I'm not saying we write software that either has or relies upon unitialized values. I'm just saying in such a hypothetical, it's not a cut and dry "do the right thing (correct according to the language spec)" decision. | ||||||||
▲ | Imustaskforhelp 21 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
We make trade decisions with hardware _without even seeing an entire packet coming in on the network_ Wait what???? Can you please educate me on high frequency trading... , like I don't understand what's the point of it & lets say one person has created a hft bot then why the need of other bot other than the fact of different trading strats and I don't think these are profitable / how they compare in the long run with the boglehead strategy?? | ||||||||
|