Support Board
Support Board
Search Board
Control Panel
View My Posts / Threads
Direct MessagesDate/Time: Sun, 05 May 2024 19:24:32 +0000
Post From: Limit v Chase Market Orders using spreadsheet
| [2019-06-11 20:57:25] |
| MotoMoto - Posts: 47 |
|
yes.... I deleted and downloaded the data....I even tried for the entire data history showing in the chart.... IB data which is the data provider for the instrument is known to have poor data, so I can assume that the change is a result of this new download of data after the old information was deleted. (looking at the Data information from IB its pretty crap from a historical perspective) The SC download for the same instrument, different code from the SC data feed shows what I would consider a more accurate representation of what happened. I already had it set to Gap Fills to None when it did the repaint.....Let me experiment tomorrow on this SC data (as opposed to the IB data) and with changing the gaps fills to none section, even though it is already set to Gap Fills to None and see what happens with the re painting. Yep - I understand the whole issue is about slippage and speed --- the point is how to get it so that you minimise the issues of this slippage and still get to get the advantages of the spreadsheet for auto trading based on the trigger events, otherwise simply using 'at market' and accepting the slippage is the easy option...such is the joys of trading! thanks edit: I can see that there is no repainting using the SC data when I run a replay, but this still does not explain the clear repainting that is occurring with the old IB data as shown in the images (which I foolishly now have deleted)....maybe SC engineers can offer more insight. Date Time Of Last Edit: 2019-06-11 21:11:43
|