[kasey_junk]

One of the big problems about conversations around "HFT" is that there is no definition of what that actually is. I like to put computerized trading systems on a scale of 3 different things: 1) trade volume 2) latency sensitivity and 3) human interaction.

So for instance, I've worked on systems that were "fairly" latency sensitive (~tens of micro seconds in latency budget), not very high volume (100s of trades a day) and had virtually no human interaction. I've also worked on systems that were "not very" latency sensitive (co-lo'd but never actually measured tick to trade times, which were assumedly in the tens of milliseconds), high volume (10s of thousands of trades a day) and had a team of clerks looking over it.

I would call both of those systems HFT systems, but some people wouldn't consider either of them HFT.

In both of those cases a 130k loss would be an outlier, but not a phenomenal one. I've worked with people who have lost millions of dollars in seconds and it blew up the group. I've met others that million dollar swings on a given strategy was par for the course (and there hedge funds doing manual trades that won't notice that trade in a graph).

That is, the world of computerized trading is pretty varied. If you are going to say someone is or is not HFT, let them know what your definition is first, as that is the only way the discussion can move forward.