Interesting concept but one cannot 100% mitigate makes no sense in English. You have closed the imbalanced. In real fact mitigate is not appropriate at all for this discussion as it relates to risks. Unless I am missing something
IGuessYou
⋅
@hotsnap, I can understand your thinking most definitely, however think about this perspective. If you look at an imbalance, it is created from orders that were placed but never fully fulfilled. If mitigating 50% of those orders allowed for your next 1mil lot order to be fulfilled then you would mitigate only 50%. However what if 50% wasn’t enough. What if you need to mitigate closer to the 100% to fulfill your orders, you would fill the entire imbalance. This is why zone can be 100% mitigated, due to the fact that the entire zone is at play and not just half of it. Hopefully this helped a bit.
hotsnap
⋅
@IGuessYou, @IGuessYou, thanks for the reply! I am sorry but this is not what I mean. The word "mitigate" is not correctly being used here - merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mitigate - to mitigate is to reduce a risk/harm. I think the right term here is "close". You would close 50% of the imbalance or close the imbalance gap to fulfil your order. I just mean the word does not sound right.
IGuessYou
⋅
@hotsnap, that’s a very good way of putting it… to an extent that’s actually closer to what I mean. I guess it would depend on what is at play. For an Imbalance it would be exactly as you said. For a POI it would more than likely be better to used mitigate. Very good perspective. Might have to steal that one for you lol.