Live data from Hacker News

The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

ptotrading.blogspot.com

81–90 of 169 posts

Re: The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

#81

I lost a shit ton of money at the firm where I work right now almost a year ago. I wrote software that began issuing trades outside of where it was expected to and did not stop. In a panic, I forced the server it was running on to terminate its process but trades were still open in the market. They had to be manually closed. I feel sick to my stomach even writing this right now, that hour I was trying to fix the prob…

Yeah, I think all of us HFT programmers have war stories like this. I got a friend that had his program take out the entire market...

Usually it's best if the programmer is separate from the ops guy, but in this case it sounds like you got stuck doing both. That sucks. I've done a bit of trading myself and it's both boring and terrifying. The two worst emotions.

Re: The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

#82

I work in a small prop-shop doing HFT. Most of the guys there are manual traders, and I've seen the same guys there for several years making steady money. I don't think this is bs or amateur hour, let me explain why. It is essentially the small (independent) traders that can make a win when the big guys (hedge funds, pension funds) are moving their positions around. Imagine a dude on a surfboard enjoying the wake of…

Exactly, small moves that George Soros wouldn't blink at are the bread and butter of these guys. I think of it like a sea of fish, these guys are almost the smallest tuna out there and they find the food the bigger guys don't want.

Re: The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

#83
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't think about technical analysis as charts and lines, but rather patterns or cycles of market (and human) behavior (which is of course what the charts and lines represent) you might see how technical analysis could have some validity. Are there patterns in markets? Are there patterns in crowd behavior? I think so. Others may disagree. Another point... if enough people believe and act on technical analysis…

You know what else has patterns? The weather.

Not saying TA is legit, but uh, we can predict the weather with better than random probability.

Re: The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

#84

I lost a shit ton of money at the firm where I work right now almost a year ago. I wrote software that began issuing trades outside of where it was expected to and did not stop. In a panic, I forced the server it was running on to terminate its process but trades were still open in the market. They had to be manually closed. I feel sick to my stomach even writing this right now, that hour I was trying to fix the prob…

FWIW: Whoever allowed you do to that unsupervised is just as guilty as you. Separation of duties and all that.

Re: The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sub-microsecond transactions seem impossible unless you're physically jacked in to the trading datacenter's network. If you try to transfer a message (like a string buffer) as quickly as possible from program A running on core 0 to program B running on core 5 on your server-grade computer, the best benchmarks I could achieve were "99% of measurements executed in fewer than 150 nanoseconds." And I worked hard on this…

Yes, you are correct. On an average Linux box to have a single cache line data transfer between the cores under 150ns 99% of the time is about the best that you can get. Especially if you are running stock kernel that eats this 1% and creates huge outliers ;). There is some talk though, about crazily-expensive switches with integrated FPGAs...

There are HFT trading systems implemented in FPGAs. They're written in Verilog. Here's one system:

http://www.bittware.com/fpga-dsp-applications/applications-s...

Want to work in that field? Know VHDL/Verilog, Linux, networking down to the wire level?

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs2/view/1821955

Re: The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

#86
Guys, you are missing the mark on technical analysis. It's not about forecasting where the prices are going to be, it's about forcing yourself to follow a set of rules instead of following your emotions.

There was an article on HN sometime ago about the practices of some old tribe to choose where to sow the crops for the next year. The practices were totally random, like watching the clouds, where a bird would fly, etc. Well, researchers eventually realized that those practices actually ensured a truly random selection and that was the best strategy. A non random selection, that is any possible bias, could have exposed the tribe to the possibility of a negative bias in selecting terrains and the risk of multiple years of bad crops which would have led to extinction. A random strategy would led to a bad year here and there and offer better chances of survival. But humans cannot make decisions truly randomly so they need a rationale system that helps them make random decisions. We are not that different from computers in this respect, but I am going astray now, so back to topic.

The markets are full of people trading based on their emotions. A stock is going up, greed and fear of missing out kick in and people buy high. A stock is going down, panic and fear of losing kick in and people sell low. People are psychologically wired to make bad decisions in the stock market, they have a negative bias. If you can find a rationale system to follow you will make better decisions than the crowd following their emotions and take their money.

Traders know very well that the first rule in the market is that everything can happen. They also know well that for any chart there are TA "rules" that say buy and other that say sells. They also know that a method will beat the guy with no method.

This at least is my theory, I have never practiced TA but I saw my father throw away tons of money with it and invariably the losses were caused by a few trades where he did not follow his rules but convinced himself to bend them a little. And he preached all the time that following the rules was the only way to win.

You are your worse enemy in the markets.

Re: The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

#87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Light moves at 1 ft per nanosecond... I sure hope you're close to the NASDAQ data center :)

It's 1ft/ns in a vacuum, but my understanding is that it's closer to 0.5ft/ns in a wire, so what you say is doubly true. But I think HFTs are running on servers close to the NASDAQ datacenter, and that people pay buckets of money for such privileges.

Pretty sure NASDAQ rents servers directly on site for serious dough, so distance is not that much of an issue.

Re: The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

#89
post #79
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An economics professor is walking down the street with a student. The student sees a $100 bill on the ground and tells the professor. The professor says, "Nonsense! If there were a bill on the ground, someone would have picked it up already!" I actually think that in this case you are probably right, though. But I wouldn't bet my life on it.

I love this joke, because on the surface it's making fun of economists whose theories blind them to an obvious reality. But how often does anyone actually find a $100 bill on the ground?

My wife found one once on a very windy day in Denver.

Re: The Day I Lost a Shit-ton of Money, Part I

#90
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm wrong all the time and lose money all the time. The big difference here is I let one get away from me instead of keeping it small/manageable like I always do. It was a situation where I could have controlled it and I didn't. I'm still up more than 4x what the final realized loss was in my trading career. I used to think TA was a joke. I was very skeptical before using it. I have never bothered to explain why it w…

You sound like the people I've seen on gambling forums postings about their unbeatable roulette system that they've "really won with in the long term".

There are actually ways to beat roulette.

1. Observe the motion of the ball and the wheel between the time they start moving and the time betting is closed, and use physics to calculate where the ball is likely to land. Bet accordingly. This was proven effective in the early '80s [1].

2. Record a lot of outcomes on a given wheel to learn its biases. Bet accordingly. You might think it would be hard to surreptitiously gather all the data you would need, but it is made considerably easier because you do not have to be surreptitious. Casinos love people who are taking notes--99.999% of the time it means that is someone who has some idiotic system that they think will let them beat the house, and casinos want to encourage such people.

There was an episode of the wonderful documentary series "Breaking Vegas" [2] that covered this method, focusing on a family that practiced it. They were making a lot of money until the Las Vegas and Atlantic City casinos banned them. American casinos can ban you for winning too much, even if you are not in any way cheating. They switched to Europe, where the casino regulators prohibited the casinos from banning them without cause, and "winning to much without cheating" is not cause. The casinos tried moving the wheels to different tables to confuse the family, but the family had spent so much time looking at each wheel they could recognize individual wheels be wear patterns and place the appropriate bets. It was pretty cool.

3. My favorite, even though it was flat out cheating. This was also covered on a "Breaking Vegas" episode. Before I explain this cheating method, we need to take a look at an older cheating method that is no longer effective. That was "past posting" or "late betting". In past posting, you place a bet AFTER the outcome of the event you are betting on has been determined. So in roulette that would be placing a bet after the ball has fallen into its final slot.

Of course, that would be hard to do. The risk would be too high that the operator might have noticed that there were no bets on that particular number when betting closed. So what you actually did was modify a winning bet after the fact to make it bigger. You put, say, a stack of 3 of the lowest value chips on a number. If that number loses, you lose those chips. If it wins, the rest of your team distracts the operator, and you swap that stack of 3 low value chips for a stack that consists of 2 low value chips on top and 1 high value chip on the bottom.

There was a guy who was doing a lot of past posting on the roulette tables, back before they had constant recorded closed circuit TV surveillance. The casinos suspected he was doing something to cheat, because he was winning more than they would like (but not enough to get banned), but they couldn't catch what he was doing.

Then surveillance came, and when he would win with a stack of 2 low value and 1 high value chip instead of paying right away they would detain him while they pulled the tape and reviewed it to see if they could see any shenanigans. He had to stop past posting. His career as a roulette cheat seemed over.

And then he had a brilliant idea. Instead of cheating by converting low value winning bets into high value winning bets, why not go the other way? Convert high value losing bets into low value losing bets!

The new plan was to place bets consisting of a high value chip on bottom with some low value chips on top, with the low value chips positioned so that the operator would not see the high value chip. It would look to him like a stack of low value chips.

If their bet lost, they would swap the stack for a stack of all low value chips. If their bet won, they would not touch it, and point out to the operator that there was a high value chip there so they would get the right pay off.

The casinos were, of course, very suspicious. They recognized that they were dealing with a known past poster, so every time he won they pulled the tape...and the tape showed that no one had come near fiddling with the winning bet. The high value chip had been at the bottom of the stack from the moment the bet was placed.

He got away with this for a ridiculous amount of time, with the head of security from one of the major casinos reviewing every win and getting quite frustrated at not being able to catch how the cheat was working. I forget how he finally got caught.

BTW, I highly recommend "Breaking Vegas". They profile some remarkable people, some who cheat, and some who won legitimately. A couple neat examples.

• They have an episode on dice dominators. These are people who, through great practice, can roll the dice at craps with such control and consistency as to get the outcome they want much more often than by chance.

• They have an episode on a man who took up counterfeiting slot machine tokens. The casinos detected this because they were getting high token counts at the end of the day, but they could not tell which tokens were counterfeit. They sent batches back to the manufacturer, and the manufacturer said that all the tokens that were sent were real.

His downfall was interesting. He was playing a slot machine that took something like $25 tokens, and the machine jammed. He moved over to the next machine and continued playing. Security happened to see that on camera, and that made them suspicious. The normal behavior when someone loses a $25 token to a jammed machine is for that person to get mad, and go find casino staff to seek a refund. No one just moves over to the next machine and keeps going--unless that $25 token isn't worth $25 to them. Hence, the guard thought he might be looking at the infamous token counterfeiter. They followed him to the parking lot when he left, and when he opened the trunk of his car that he had boxes full of tokens for all the major casinos.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eudaemonic_Pie

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_Vegas

Post reply on HN