IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Profitability, efficiency, and inequality in double auction markets with snipers


  • Brewer, Paul
  • Ratan, Anmol


This research builds upon two early efforts to explore robot trading strategies within the double auction market: (1) Gode and Sunder's Zero Intelligence robots, a simple, loss-avoiding, random, persistent, liquidity-providing strategy that produced, in double auction markets, high efficiency of allocation and market price convergence (within-period) towards the predictions of competitive theory; and (2) an entirely parasitic version of Todd Kaplan's Snipers, a simple, loss-avoiding, deterministic, liquidity-removing strategy. The original version of Kaplan's Snipers achieved the highest profit in an early tournament (the Santa Fe Double Auction Tournament) in part by accepting others’ orders when there was an excellent price, a low bid-ask spread, or time was running out. As we increase the proportion of snipers in a market, we find that sniping is not generally superior to the ZI strategy and that the snipers’ parasitic and end-of-period behaviors eventually cause extreme price variance and divergence from competitive equilibrium, lower market efficiencies, and rising Gini coefficients of inequality. Our results contrast with earlier claims by Gode and Sunder and others that double auction market efficiency and convergence to competitive equilibria are market properties relatively insensitive to agent strategies. Instead, we find a need to consider agent strategy in explaining how our market outcomes differ from those previously obtained either by Gode and Sunder or by Kaplan's successful tournament entry. Specifically, the interaction of parasitic sniper strategies creates a trading constraint: snipers will never trade with each other. These strategy-induced trading constraints force the standard market efficiency metric lower as the sniper population rises.

Suggested Citation

  • Brewer, Paul & Ratan, Anmol, 2019. "Profitability, efficiency, and inequality in double auction markets with snipers," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 486-499.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:164:y:2019:i:c:p:486-499
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2019.06.017

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Paola Tubaro, 2009. "Is individual rationality essential to market price formation? The contribution of zero-intelligence agent trading models," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(1), pages 1-19.
    2. Vernon L. Smith, 1962. "An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70, pages 322-322.
    3. Alvin E. Roth & Axel Ockenfels, 2002. "Last-Minute Bidding and the Rules for Ending Second-Price Auctions: Evidence from eBay and Amazon Auctions on the Internet," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1093-1103, September.
    4. Gjerstad, Steven & Dickhaut, John, 1998. "Price Formation in Double Auctions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 1-29, January.
    5. Chen, Shu-Heng, 2012. "Varieties of agents in agent-based computational economics: A historical and an interdisciplinary perspective," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-25.
    6. Vernon L. Smith, 1965. "Experimental Auction Markets and the Walrasian Hypothesis," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73, pages 387-387.
    7. Steven Gjerstad & Jason M. Shachat, 2007. "Individual Rationality and Market Efficiency," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1204, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
    8. Bossaerts, Peter & Plott, Charles R., 2008. "From Market Jaws to the Newton Method: The Geometry of How a Market Can Solve Systems of Equations," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 22-24, Elsevier.
    9. Friedman, Daniel, 1991. "A simple testable model of double auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 47-70, January.
    10. Glosten, Lawrence R. & Milgrom, Paul R., 1985. "Bid, ask and transaction prices in a specialist market with heterogeneously informed traders," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 71-100, March.
    11. Adrian Dragulescu & Victor M. Yakovenko, 2000. "Statistical mechanics of money," Papers cond-mat/0001432,, revised Aug 2000.
    12. Eric Budish & Peter Cramton & John Shim, 2015. "Editor's Choice The High-Frequency Trading Arms Race: Frequent Batch Auctions as a Market Design Response," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 130(4), pages 1547-1621.
    13. Paul Brewer & Jaksa Cvitanic & Charles R. Plott, 2013. "Market Microstructure Design and Flash Crashes: A Simulation Approach," Journal of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 223-250, November.
    14. Jonathan Brogaard & Terrence Hendershott & Ryan Riordan, 2014. "High-Frequency Trading and Price Discovery," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(8), pages 2267-2306.
    15. Gode, Dhananjay K & Sunder, Shyam, 1993. "Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(1), pages 119-137, February.
    16. Kyle, Albert S, 1985. "Continuous Auctions and Insider Trading," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(6), pages 1315-1335, November.
    17. Paul Brewer & Maria Huang & Brad Nelson & Charles Plott, 2002. "On the Behavioral Foundations of the Law of Supply and Demand: Human Convergence and Robot Randomness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(3), pages 179-208, December.
    18. Catherine C. Eckel & Daniel Houser & Peter J. Boettke, 2017. "A Celebration of Vernon Smith's 90th Birthday and Lifetime Contributions to Economics, Southern Economic Association, 2016," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 83(3), pages 639-643, January.
    19. Kimbrough, Erik O. & Smyth, Andrew, 2018. "Testing the boundaries of the double auction: The effects of complete information and market power," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 372-396.
    20. Joshua M. Epstein & Robert L. Axtell, 1996. "Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262550253.
    21. Paul Brewer & Jaksa Cvitanic & Charles R. Plott, 2013. "Market microstructure design and flash crashes: A simulation approach," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 16, pages 223-250, November.
    22. Brewer, Paul J., 2008. "Zero-Intelligence Robots and the Double Auction Market: A Graphical Tour," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 31-45, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Itzhak Rasooly, 2022. "Competitive equilibrium and the double auction," Papers 2209.07532,
    2. Jakob Grazzini, 2013. "Information dissemination in an experimentally based agent-based stock market," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 8(1), pages 179-209, April.
    3. Duffy, John, 2006. "Agent-Based Models and Human Subject Experiments," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 949-1011, Elsevier.
    4. Bellia, Mario & Pelizzon, Loriana & Subrahmanyam, Marti & Uno, Jun & Yuferova, Darya, 2017. "Coming early to the party," SAFE Working Paper Series 182, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
      • Mario Bellia & Loriana Pelizzon & Marti G. Subrahmanyam & Jun Uno & Darya Yuferova, 2020. "Coming early to the party," Working Papers 2020:11, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    5. Mark Marner-Hausen, 2022. "Developing a Framework for Real-Time Trading in a Laboratory Financial Market," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 172, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    6. Corgnet, Brice & DeSantis, Mark & Porter, David, 2020. "The distribution of information and the price efficiency of markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    7. Giuseppe Attanasi & Samuele Centorrino & Ivan Moscati, 2011. "Double Auction Equilibrium and Efficiency in a Classroom Experimental Search Market," LERNA Working Papers 11.03.337, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    8. Mikhail Anufriev & Jasmina Arifovic & John Ledyard & Valentyn Panchenko, 2013. "Efficiency of continuous double auctions under individual evolutionary learning with full or limited information," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 539-573, July.
    9. Morone, Andrea & Nuzzo, Simone, 2015. "Market Efficiency, Trading Institutions and Information Mirages: evidence from an experimental asset market," MPRA Paper 67448, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Gerig, Austin & Michayluk, David, 2017. "Automated liquidity provision," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 1-13.
    11. Zhang, Junhuan, 2018. "Influence of individual rationality on continuous double auction markets with networked traders," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 495(C), pages 353-392.
    12. Großer, Jens & Reuben, Ernesto, 2013. "Redistribution and market efficiency: An experimental study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 39-52.
    13. Cason, Timothy N. & Friedman, Daniel, 1996. "Price formation in double auction markets," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 20(8), pages 1307-1337, August.
    14. Eric M. Aldrich & Kristian López Vargas, 2020. "Experiments in high-frequency trading: comparing two market institutions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(2), pages 322-352, June.
    15. Marco LiCalzi & Paolo Pellizzari, 2008. "Zero-Intelligence Trading Without Resampling," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Klaus Schredelseker & Florian Hauser (ed.), Complexity and Artificial Markets, chapter 1, pages 3-14, Springer.
    16. Grazzini, J., 2011. "Experimental Based, Agent Based Stock Market," CeNDEF Working Papers 11-07, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics and Finance.
    17. Junhuan Zhang & Peter McBurney & Katarzyna Musial, 2018. "Convergence of trading strategies in continuous double auction markets with boundedly-rational networked traders," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 301-352, January.
    18. Ross M. Miller, 2012. "The Effect Of Boundary Conditions On Efficiency And Pricing In Double‐Auction Markets With Zero‐Intelligence Agents," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 179-188, July.
    19. Sean Crockett, 2013. "Price Dynamics In General Equilibrium Experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 421-438, July.
    20. Nilabhra Bhattacharya & Bidisha Chakrabarty & Xu (Frank) Wang, 2020. "High-frequency traders and price informativeness during earnings announcements," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 1156-1199, September.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:164:y:2019:i:c:p:486-499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.