¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
  1. Twsapi
  2. Topics

Best order type to assure getting filled at a specific future price

 

As price is unfolding at some point I wish to buy at a future (higher) price. Lets say market is 2050.25, lets say i now want to send an order and looking to get a fill at 2060.50. The order will sit there and wait for the market to come to it.?

I would be looking to get filled right on 2060.50.?

What would be the best strategy to achieve this, what order type? So far I am looking at a Limit if touched order and also a conditional order, with the price being the condition.?

Is this about the right approach or anything else to suggest getting filled at a future price, and directly at the price.?

Note this is ES also.?
 

Not sure I understand, the market is now at 2050 and you want to send a BUY order now, to buy later at a higher price of 2060? why not buy at 2050?
Not sure if limit if touched would work, because the current price would be below the limit threshold, i.e. "better" and I assume would likely get executed immediately.
IMHO price condition would be the go to approach for that.
 

Limit if touched where trigger price set at 2060 then it activates the limit order.?


On Tue, Apr 4, 2023, 9:55 PM John <serorjb@...> wrote:
Not sure I understand, the market is now at 2050 and you want to send a BUY order now, to buy later at a higher price of 2060? why not buy at 2050?
Not sure if limit if touched would work, because the current price would be below the limit threshold, i.e. "better" and I assume would likely get executed immediately.
IMHO price condition would be the go to approach for that.

 

if i got it right, you want??order.
 

your right stop limit order


thanks!


On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 9:07?AM fordfrog via <fordfrog=[email protected]> wrote:
if i got it right, you want??order.

 

I agree with @fordfrog. The stop-limit order is probably the best fit for what you want to do. If you have not done so yet, you can read up on a lot of the fine print at or browse details of all order types and algos at

There are other options as well, such as the a conditional order as @John suggested. When we design order constructs for an instrument, we take into consideration where the order is held until execution and when exactly it is submitted to the exchange:

  • Some order types are submitted right from your client through TWS/IBGW and IBKR's systems to the exchanges (native order types)
  • Other order types and pretty much all algos are simulated within IBKR's systems (simulated order types)
  • Some may be within TWS/IBGW for a while
  • And others may be actively controlled by your client application (say you client monitors some market situation and places orders accordingly)

Obviously, speed of execution (with possibly better prices), resilience and tolerance against a long list of failures increases the closer your order is held to the exchange. The order types that execute directly at the exchange are a little different from exchange to exchange, but you can quickly find that out from the "Order Types" tab for each exchange listed at

In most of our cases, for example, we prefer bracket orders over OCA orders (assuming we can achieve the same goal) since brackets are generally native and OCAs are generally simulated. In your case, the stop-limit order is native on many exchanges while conditional orders are simulated by IBKR.

There is nothing wrong with simulated order types or strategies where your client application does all the heavy lifting (we do that a;ll the time), but you probably want to make sure you are aware of possibly failure modes when you make design and trade-off decisions.

Hope that helps,

´³¨¹°ù²µ±ð²Ô
 

Thank you for the added information I did not know about native and simulated. In this case i opted for a bracket order with the parent sent at the higher price using stop limit.

Thanks for the help.

Andrew

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023, 11:17 AM ´³¨¹°ù²µ±ð²Ô Reinold via <TwsApiOnGroupsIo=[email protected]> wrote:

I agree with @fordfrog. The stop-limit order is probably the best fit for what you want to do. If you have not done so yet, you can read up on a lot of the fine print at or browse details of all order types and algos at

There are other options as well, such as the a conditional order as @John suggested. When we design order constructs for an instrument, we take into consideration where the order is held until execution and when exactly it is submitted to the exchange:

  • Some order types are submitted right from your client through TWS/IBGW and IBKR's systems to the exchanges (native order types)
  • Other order types and pretty much all algos are simulated within IBKR's systems (simulated order types)
  • Some may be within TWS/IBGW for a while
  • And others may be actively controlled by your client application (say you client monitors some market situation and places orders accordingly)

Obviously, speed of execution (with possibly better prices), resilience and tolerance against a long list of failures increases the closer your order is held to the exchange. The order types that execute directly at the exchange are a little different from exchange to exchange, but you can quickly find that out from the "Order Types" tab for each exchange listed at

In most of our cases, for example, we prefer bracket orders over OCA orders (assuming we can achieve the same goal) since brackets are generally native and OCAs are generally simulated. In your case, the stop-limit order is native on many exchanges while conditional orders are simulated by IBKR.

There is nothing wrong with simulated order types or strategies where your client application does all the heavy lifting (we do that a;ll the time), but you probably want to make sure you are aware of possibly failure modes when you make design and trade-off decisions.

Hope that helps,

´³¨¹°ù²µ±ð²Ô

1 - 7 of 7