There are three ocaType options and only one of them allows MOC/MOO orders in the group. So I guess my concern is 67% valid :-)
We don't use OCA groups a lot but when we do, (more) guaranteed overfill protection is key so that we tend to use type 1 ("with block"). As you said, the two "with block" types reject MOC/MOO orders in the group but I guess the overfill risk for type 3 OCAs can be mitigated if triggers for the orders in the OCA are "far enough" apart. In other words, even in crazy market situation no two orders in the group would be eligible at the same time.
´³¨¹°ù²µ±ð²Ô
On Thu, Aug 17, 2023 at 08:16 AM, ds-avatar wrote:
moc.ocaType = 3;
trailingStopLoss.ocaType = 3;
This is to allow the MOC order to work in an OCA group of the bracket order children, countering the concern that Juergen raised. Although "3" for this setting is generally used to reduce the mutually exclusive orders by the size of either order's fill without overfill protection, with MOC/LOC order it just means "cancel the other order completely" because IBKR does not offer reduction of MOC/LOC orders while any other?ocaType?setting will resulting in the MOC/LOC order rejection.
