huh, so this might me just being an idiot, and I say this as someone who has definitely poked fun at people not understanding this in the past, however, reading thru the doc again, I wonder if some of the confusion is coming from this language on order direction:
huh, so this might me just being an idiot, and I say this as someone who has definitely poked fun at people not understanding this in the past, however, reading thru the doc again, I wonder if some of the confusion is coming from this language on order direction:
when I read the word matched
when I read the word matched
I could see someone reading that as taking the other side in the trade
I could see someone reading that as taking the other side in the trade
which would cause confusion for sure
which would cause confusion for sure
That is what I am thinking as well. So it would be nice if that was the case to be given the opportunity to tweak the code that may be viewed as malignant.
That is what I am thinking as well. So it would be nice if that was the case to be given the opportunity to tweak the code that may be viewed as malignant.
If we say an order with outcome_side = no at .25 is "matched" with an order with outcome_side = yes also at price .25 in a trade this doesnt make any sense
If we say an order with outcome_side = no at .25 is "matched" with an order with outcome_side = yes also at price .25 in a trade this doesnt make any sense
idk maybe the word "equivalent" would be better and then also include book_side in the explanation
idk maybe the word "equivalent" would be better and then also include book_side in the explanation
i undestand this is further explained by the next paragraph, but seperating them under different headers might make people think that its expressing different concepts
i undestand this is further explained by the next paragraph, but seperating them under different headers might make people think that its expressing different concepts
It's funny I feel like a conversation I had with James led to the whole outcome_side/book_side thing and for the life of me I don't remember why I requested it. I've gotten so used to the bid/ask semantics now
It's funny I feel like a conversation I had with James led to the whole outcome_side/book_side thing and for the life of me I don't remember why I requested it. I've gotten so used to the bid/ask semantics now
yeah that really is the better way to think about it
yeah that really is the better way to think about it
I mean I like outcome_side / book_side
I mean I like outcome_side / book_side
Yeah it's still useful but if it never existed I don't think I'd be clamoring for it right now
Yeah it's still useful but if it never existed I don't think I'd be clamoring for it right now
I think I remember you talking about something like this before, but for people coming from the UI, the UI making it seem like there's 2 orderbooks also doesn't help
I think I remember you talking about something like this before, but for people coming from the UI, the UI making it seem like there's 2 orderbooks also doesn't help
I remember now. They added book_side. Outcome_side was the default but that way there was no record in orders of your bid/ask setting on placement
I remember now. They added book_side. Outcome_side was the default but that way there was no record in orders of your bid/ask setting on placement
yeah it was just meant to make the transition easier
yeah it was just meant to make the transition easier
Yee, which, as some who does still have yes/no semantics in their I definitely appreciate it
Yee, which, as some who does still have yes/no semantics in their I definitely appreciate it