- Published on
GenAI can assess an arbitrage opportunity only if "reasoning" is enabled
- Authors
- Name
- Harvey Huang
- Github
- @Github
Abstract
While generative AI agents demonstrate impressive capabilities in tackling tasks across disciplines, they are subject to scrutiny through failures in tasks and benchmarks. In finance, market experiments with humans are well-established for teaching and research purposes. There, human behaviour is well documented. Thus, it is interesting to examine GenAI agents' behaviour and understanding of the basics in market experiments. Here I asked three mainstream GenAI chatbots (ChatGPT, Copilot, DeepSeek) whether an arbitrage opportunity exists in a one iteration market experiment, and if so whether they could exploit the arbitrage. I found that only ChatGPT responded the correct answer if the advanced reasoning function was off. When reasoning is enabled, all three chatbots found the solution at the cost of a significantly longer token-generating process. Reinforcement learning and self-replay appear to underpin the thinking process in reasoning models.
Introduction
Numerous tests and benchmarks have been proposed to interrogate the limits of these agents since the emergence and prevalence of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) chatbots. An interesting question is whether they are capable of trading in financial markets. Prior to trading, a set of experiments testing economics and finance basics is needed. After a few trials of with the first generation models, I realized that GenAI agents might fail basic knowledge test despite being exceptionally good at tasks like summarizing contents.
Announced at the end of 2024, the second generation models are said to excel at logical tasks because they can "reason". While scholars in psychology/neuroscience/decision science are strongly vocal against the use of "reasoning" or "intelligence", the performance of GenAI agents on some logic tests is indeed much better judging purely by the results. The improved results have prompted me to re-assess the tasks where the first generation bots failed miserably.
Here I document responses from three mainstream GenAI (ChatGPT, Copilot, DeepSeek), both with and without the advanced "reasoning", to a hypothetical scenario where an obvious arbitrage opportunity exists. An arbitrage opportunity is when one can profit from buying low and selling high of the same item. The only parameter that I toggled was the reasoning boolean parameter, all other parameters like "creativity level" were default per platform. In the instruction prompt (see "Question Prompt), I gave crystal clear context and background knowledge as if the agents were university students, assuming no prior knowledge of finance or trading. Then I gave specific steps for the agents to follow. Note the term "arbitrage" was not explicitly written in the instruction to the agent since I deem this term as discipline-specific; instead, I explained the goal to agents in plain language.
The idea stems from market experiments run by my supervisor， who used to (and still is) run real-time trading experiments where a group of students conduct trading activities for teaching and research purposes. We have some understanding of how human intelligence (i.e., university students) would perform in a confined market condition through these market experiments, thus I'm keen to compare the results between humans and GenAI on a basic arbitrage task. Importantly, the "thinking" process, namely how these agents come up with the final decision, is also available in detail when "reasoning" is enabled. The details allow me to assess their "logics".
Unpacking the question prompt
You act as a trading agent in a simulated economy (UNIT in US dollar cents).
The asset you trade is called a "widget".
**Account information**
{"cash_available": 505000, "widgets_available": 507}
**Trading rules**
private_bid: someone wants to buy a widget from you in private for the amount stated.
private_ask: someone wants to sell a widget to you in private for the amount stated.
best_bid: the best price you can immediately sell the widget in the public market.
best_ask: the best price you can immediately buy the widget in the public market.
bid_book: a list of prices you can sell a widget in the public market.
ask_book: a list of prices you can buy a widget in the public market.
**Market information**
{
"best_bid": 366,
"best_ask": 390,
"bid_book": [85, 114, 176, 221, 248, 309, 310, 319, 366],
"ask_book": [390, 486, 523, 561, 575, 609, 773, 789],
"private_ask": 400
}
Based on the information provided to you, your task is to make a list of actions for the following 3 steps:
Step 1: determine if there are profitable strategies. If there are profitable strategies, proceed to steps 2 and 3. Otherwise, just reply None.
Step 2: pick an order side to show your action, either BUY or SELL.
Step 3: set the price of your action stated in step 2.
Your goal is to consider the private signals you have received and make a profit by selling at the best_bid or buying at the best_ask from the public market order book and then trade with the private signal.
Tell me your strategy.
The above prompt can be viewed as an exercise to educate basic trading concepts in financial markets. Contrary to common perception, concepts like "bid" and "ask" in a double auction market are surprisingly difficult to grasp. Those who do not possess extensive trading experience are often confused about which price they can buy and sell.
The simulated economy consists of two markets, private and public. Information available to the agents in the public market entails a list of buy orders called "bid_book", and a list of sell orders called "ask_book". In economics terms, together the two lists constitute the demand and supply curve for the "widget". In contrast, information in the private market signals a private message from other (pseudo) participants to the agents, which echoes the idea of a "dark pool". Agents are instructed to act as traders to assess the current market conditions before proposing a trading strategy if there exists one.
This economy is akin to any stock exchange with some minor exceptions by design. The item is called a "widget", following the convention in economics and finance, instead of being called "Apple" or "Microsoft" stock. This is because agents tend to be very cautious about providing financial advice when it comes to financial markets, yet I want them to utilize their full capacity in order to properly examine their "logics" without any noises (confounding factors). The account information is somewhat irrelevant here, it is an ex-ante assurance so that agents know they have sufficient funds to buy items and sufficient items to sell, thus avoiding confusion and a more advanced concept pertaining to the financial market, "short". Moreover, there is also no volume attached to each price for simplicity.
The correct answer to the prompt is "None", i.e., there is no arbitrage opportunity. The reason is simple: the "private_ask" signal is greater than the "best_bid" in the market (even greater than the "best_ask"); there is no profit for agents to trade the private signal and arbitrage through the public market. If the private ask signal is below the "best_bid", say 350, the agent could immediately buy a widget through the private signal and sell the same widget in the open market for 16 (366-350) profit.
Can GenAI agents identify the correct answer?
| ChatGPT | DeepSeek | Copilot | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Reasoning | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ |
Overall the performance is impressive. All agents understood the prompt well. The answers were structured at least roughly as per request. When reasoning is off, only ChatGP standard responded that there is no arbitrage opportunity; the other two did not seem to fully appreciate the concept of "bid" and "ask", thus provided contradicting answers. In contrast, when reasoning is enabled, all three GenAI chatbots gave the correct answer. The standard agents tended to be creative by suggesting more trading strategies or linking to advanced concepts in financial markets, whereas the reasoning agents provided a more straightforward answer to the prompt question.
In the essence of the correct answers stands the "what-if" analysis: if I implement a possible trading strategy, would the result be a profit or a loss? ChatGPT standard gave a 10/10 example, both accurate and concise.
If we buy at **400** (private ask), the best price we can sell it at is **366** (best bid), leading to an **immediate loss of 34 cents per widget**. This is **not profitable**.
Interestingly this strategy is precisely the same as what many university students would do when we ran market experiments. Students would typically show the "what-if" analysis to demonstrate that they understood the concept of bid and ask before we proceeded to the trading task. Only those who had some experience in trading might directly compare two numbers.
The same approach was seen in all reasoning models. However, the thinking process was not quite as concise as the standard models since it clearly involved a repeated internal chain of thoughts. The agents acted as if they were thinking and talking to themselves repeatedly, verging on performing a soliloquy. To exemplify, the answer provided by DeepSeek (DeepThink R1) is considerably longer than the two; it contains repetitive sentences and logic, indicating a chain of Q&A to itself to challenge potential mistakes and reinforce the correct answer from the prior thinking step.
This self-replay iterative learning process is also observed in human agents. There are number of models to this process, popular ones are reinforcement learning and bayesian modelling. However, from my perspective, the information in the answer is far too repetitive than necessary. Such repetitiveness would not be deemed as "normal" if seen in human agents. It is almost as if the agents spawned multiple brains to tackle the problem and performed a majority vote. Perhaps such repetitiveness is due to how the models are constructed: the more affirmation of the answer through "self-replay", the more likely that the answer is correct. After all, these agents are trained iteratively to optimize accuracy, not necessarily response efficiency. Thus, GenAI agents with reasoning appear to mimic human thinking processes to some degree, but clearly not identical.
Whether the reasoning models possess has the same cognitive capacity as humans remains controversial; there is an ongoing debate between computer scientists vs. non-computer scientists on this topic.
ChatGPT
### **Step 1: Identify Profitable Strategies**
We analyze potential arbitrage opportunities between the private signals and the public market.
- The best public **bid** (sell price) is **366**.
- The best public **ask** (buy price) is **390**.
- The **private ask** (someone selling to us) is **400**.
If we buy at **400** (private ask), the best price we can sell it at is **366** (best bid), leading to an **immediate loss of 34 cents per widget**. This is **not profitable**.
Since no immediate arbitrage exists, the answer is: **None**.
### **Strategy for Future Trading**
- **Monitor bid and ask books**: If the best bid rises above **400**, we can buy at the private ask (400) and sell for a profit.
- **Wait for a better private bid**: If someone offers to buy privately at **above 390**, we could buy at 390 and sell to them.
- **Market trends**: If ask prices decrease or bid prices increase, new opportunities may arise.
Would you like me to check for other strategies, such as market-making?
ChatGPT (Reason), 95 seconds
Looking at the task, it simulates a trading agent operating in a market using widgets. I have account information including cash and widgets available. The task asks if there are profitable strategies based on the market info provided, including bid and ask prices. There’s also a private ask price to consider. The first step is to check for opportunities for profit. If I find any, I will proceed to Step 2 and 3, otherwise, I’ll respond with "None". I'll evaluate the numbers.
Looking at the task, it simulates a trading agent operating in a market using widgets. I have account information including cash and widgets available. The task asks if there are profitable strategies based on the market info provided, including bid and ask prices. There's also a private ask price to consider. The first step is to check for opportunities for profit. If I find any, I will proceed to Step 2 and 3, otherwise, I’ll respond with "None". I'll evaluate the numbers.
Alright, Step 3 asks me to set the price based on the action I chose in Step 2. Looking at the market, I can sell the widget at the best_bid price (366 cents) or buy at the best_ask price (390 cents). I also have a private_ask of 400 cents. So, if I buy at the private_ask (400 cents), I would try selling it at the best_bid (366 cents) in the public market for a loss. Does this make sense? I'll need to reconsider this as selling at a loss isn’t profitable.
Okay, let's break this down: If I sell at the best_bid (366) and then buy at the private_ask (400), that's a loss. The goal would be profitable arbitrage: buying at a lower price in one market and selling higher in another. However, I don't have a private_bid, so I can't reverse the process and sell privately at a higher price. With the available private_ask being 400, my best strategy is unclear. I might need to reconsider based on the provided info.
After all this thinking, it seems like there isn't a profitable opportunity here. If I buy at 390 in the public market and then use the private_ask at 400, I'd lose money. The only private signal I have is the private_ask, which doesn't help since it's more expensive than the public price. The instructions imply arbitrage, but since there's no private_bid, the only available signal is a disadvantageous private_ask. So, unfortunately, it doesn't look like a profitable strategy is available here.
So, it looks like none of the available strategies yield immediate profits. The public market is offering a widget at 390, which is cheaper than the private_ask of 400, but the private ask doesn't give me a clear buy opportunity. Selling the widget privately at 400 after buying at the public market price might seem profitable, but without a private_bid or buyer, there's no way to execute that strategy. Therefore, no profitable arbitrage exists under the given information.
Given the market conditions, there is no immediate arbitrage opportunity. The public market lets you sell at 366 or buy at 390, but the only private signal available is a private ask at 400 (an offer to sell to you at 400). In other words, if you were to buy widget publicly at 390, you wouldn't be able to sell it immediately via a private bid at a higher price, and selling at 366 and then buying privately at 400 would be unprofitable.
Therefore, no profitable strategy is available, and my answer is:
None
Deepseek
### Step 1: Determine if there are profitable strategies
To determine if there are profitable strategies, we need to compare the private signals with the public market prices:
- **Private Ask**: Someone is willing to sell a widget to you at **400** cents.
- **Best Bid**: The best price you can immediately sell a widget in the public market is **366** cents.
- **Best Ask**: The best price you can immediately buy a widget in the public market is **390** cents.
#### Potential Strategies:
1. **Buy from the public market and sell to the private buyer**:
- Buy at the best ask price in the public market (**390** cents).
- Sell to the private buyer at **400** cents.
- Profit per widget: **400 - 390 = 10** cents.
2. **Sell to the public market and buy from the private seller**:
- Sell at the best bid price in the public market (**366** cents).
- Buy from the private seller at **400** cents.
- Profit per widget: **366 - 400 = -34** cents (this is a loss, so this strategy is not profitable).
Only the first strategy (buy from the public market and sell to the private buyer) is profitable.
---
### Step 2: Pick an order side (BUY or SELL)
Since the profitable strategy involves buying from the public market and selling to the private buyer, the order side is **BUY**.
---
### Step 3: Set the price of your action
To execute the strategy, you need to buy at the best ask price in the public market, which is **390** cents.
---
### Strategy Summary:
1. **Action**: BUY
2. **Price**: 390 cents (best ask in the public market).
3. **Profit**: After buying at 390 cents, sell to the private buyer at 400 cents, earning a profit of **10 cents per widget**.
---
### Final Answer:
- **Step 1**: There is a profitable strategy (buy from the public market and sell to the private buyer).
- **Step 2**: BUY
- **Step 3**: Set the price to **390** cents.
Deepseek (DeepThink R1) 140 seconds
Okay, let's see. I need to figure out if there are any profitable strategies here. Let's start by looking at the market information provided.
The best bid in the public market is 366 cents. That means if I sell a widget there, I can get 366. The best ask is 390, so buying from the public market would cost me 390 per widget. Now, there's a private ask at 400. A private ask means someone is willing to sell to me at 400. Wait, no—the definitions say private_ask is someone wants to sell to me at that price. So if I accept that private_ask, I have to buy from them at 400. But maybe I can find a way to make a profit by combining public and private trades.
Wait, how does this work? Let me think. Suppose I can buy from the public market at best_ask (390) and then sell to the private party. Wait, but the private_ask is someone selling to me, not buying. Wait, no, the private_ask is someone wanting to sell to me. So if there's a private_ask at 400, that means I can buy from them at 400. But why would I do that if the public market has a lower ask price? Hmm, maybe I got that backwards. Let me check the definitions again.
Private_bid: someone wants to buy from me (so I can sell to them at their bid). Private_ask: someone wants to sell to me (so I can buy from them at their ask). So the private_ask here is 400. That means I can buy a widget from this private party for 400 cents. But the public market's best ask is 390, which is cheaper. So buying from the public market is cheaper. So why would I buy from the private party at 400 when I can get it cheaper in the public market? That doesn't make sense. Wait, maybe there's a mistake here. Wait, perhaps the private_ask is an opportunity for me to sell to them. Wait no, no. Let me re-read:
private_ask: someone wants to sell a widget to you in private for the amount stated. So that means if I accept their ask, I have to buy from them at 400. But since the public market's best ask is 390, buying from the public is better. So maybe that's not useful. Unless there's some other angle.
Alternatively, maybe there's a private_bid (someone wants to buy from me) but there's no private_bid listed here. The market info only has a private_ask. So maybe I need to look for opportunities where I can buy low and sell high, possibly using both public and private markets.
Wait, let's check if there's an arbitrage here. Suppose I can buy from the public market at 390 and then sell to someone else. But the private_ask is 400, which is someone willing to sell to me, so that's not helpful. The best bid in the public market is 366. So if I buy from the public at 390 and sell in the public at 366, that's a loss. So that's not good.
Wait, maybe I can buy from the private_ask at 400 and then sell in the public market. But the best bid is 366, so selling there would give me 366, which is way less than 400. That would be a loss. So that's not profitable.
Alternatively, maybe I can buy from the public market where the best ask is 390 and sell to a private party. But there's no private_bid here. The private_ask is the only private signal, which is someone selling to me. So that's not helpful for selling.
Wait, maybe I can check if there's a way to use the bid_book and ask_book for better prices. The bid_book lists prices I can sell at in the public market. The highest bid in the bid_book is 366 (since best_bid is 366). The ask_book has the best_ask at 390. So the bid_book is in order from lowest to highest? Wait, no, the bid_book is [85, 114, ..., 366]. Wait, that's arranged in ascending order, but the best bid is the highest available, which is 366. So the bid_book lists all the bids available, maybe in ascending order, but the best is the highest. Similarly, the ask_book is [390, 486, ...], so the best ask is 390, which is the lowest in the ask_book.
So perhaps there's a way to buy from the public market at the best ask (390) and then sell to a private party. Wait, but there's no private_bid here. The private_ask is someone selling to me. So unless there's a way to buy from the private_ask and sell higher in the public market, but that's not possible here because the private_ask is 400 and the public best bid is 366. So that would result in a loss.
Alternatively, maybe there's a way to short sell. But the problem statement doesn't mention short selling. The account information shows widgets_available: 507. So I can sell up to 507 widgets. But if I don't have any, maybe I can't. Wait, but the available widgets are 507, so I can sell those. But how to use them.
Wait, maybe sell widgets from inventory. If I have widgets, I can sell them in the public market at the best bid (366) or to a private party. But there's no private_bid here. So selling in the public market at 366. But maybe there's a way to buy cheaper from the private_ask and then sell higher. Wait, but the private_ask is someone selling to me at 400, which is higher than the public best ask. That seems worse.
Wait, maybe there's a mistake here. The private_ask is 400, which is higher than the public best ask of 390. So why would anyone buy from the private_ask? Unless there's a way to buy from the public and sell to the private party. But that's not possible here. The private_ask is someone selling to me, so I can't sell to them. The private_bid would be someone buying from me.
So perhaps the only possible way is to look for arbitrage between the public market and private signals.
Wait, maybe if there's a private_bid higher than the public best ask, then I can buy from the public and sell to the private. But in this case, the private_ask is 400. Let's see: Suppose there's a private_bid of, say, 400. Then I could buy from the public at 390 and sell to the private party at 400, making 10 cents per widget. But in the current scenario, there's no private_bid. Only a private_ask. So that's not applicable.
Wait, the market information provided here only has a private_ask at 400. So maybe there's no private_bid. Therefore, perhaps the only possible strategy is to look for other opportunities.
Alternatively, maybe there's a way to buy from the private_ask and then sell in the public market. But since the private_ask is 400 and the best bid is 366, that would result in a loss of 34 cents per widget. So that's not profitable.
Alternatively, maybe there's a way to buy at a lower price in the public market and then sell at a higher price in the public market. But looking at the bid and ask books, the spread is best_bid 366, best_ask 390. The spread is 24 cents. But unless there's a way to buy lower than 390 and sell higher than 366, but that's not possible here.
Wait, but looking at the bid_book and ask_book, perhaps there's a hidden opportunity. Let's see:
The bid_book is [85, 114, 176, 221, 248, 309, 310, 319, 366]. These are the prices at which I can sell in the public market. The highest is 366. The ask_book is [390, 486, 523, 561, 575, 609, 773, 789]. These are the prices I can buy from the public market. The lowest is 390.
So the public market's best bid and ask are 366 and 390. The spread is 24. Normally, a trading strategy might involve buying at the ask and selling at the bid, but that's a loss. Unless there's another way.
Wait, but maybe the private_ask is 400. So if someone is willing to sell to me at 400, and if I can find a way to sell that widget at a higher price. But the best bid in the public market is 366, which is lower. So that's a loss.
Alternatively, perhaps I can sell my widgets to the public market at 366 and then buy from the private_ask at 400. But that would not make sense.
Hmm, maybe there's a mistake here. Let me double-check. The user says that the private signals are either a bid or an ask. So private_ask is someone selling to me, private_bid is someone buying from me. So in this case, the only private signal is someone wanting to sell to me at 400. Which is worse than the public market's ask of 390. So why would I take that?
Alternatively, maybe the private_ask is a mistake, but according to the given data, that's what it is. So perhaps there's no profitable strategy here. But the question says to proceed to steps 2 and 3 if there's a profitable strategy. Otherwise, reply None.
But maybe I'm missing something. Let's think again.
Wait, maybe the private_ask is the price at which someone is willing to buy from me. No, no, according to the definitions, private_ask is someone wanting to sell to me. So no.
Wait, what if there's a way to sell to the private_ask? Wait, no. The private_ask is someone selling to me. So I can only buy from them at 400. If I have the cash, I could buy from them and then sell in the public market, but that would be selling at 366, which is a loss.
Alternatively, maybe there's a way to buy from the public market and then sell to the private party. But if there's no private_bid, then I can't do that. The private_ask is someone selling to me, so I can't sell to them.
So in this case, maybe there's no profitable strategy. Because the private_ask is higher than the public's best ask, so buying from the private party is more expensive, and there's no private_bid to sell to at a higher price than the public best bid.
Therefore, the answer would be None. But wait, the problem says to consider the private signals and make a profit by selling at the best_bid or buying at the best_ask and then trade with the private signal.
Wait, the user's instruction says: "your goal is to consider the private signals you have received and make a profit by selling at the best_bid or buying at the best_ask from the public market order book and then trade with the private signal."
Ah, so the idea is to execute a trade in the public market (buy at best_ask or sell at best_bid) and then trade with the private signal. So perhaps a strategy where you buy low in the public market and sell high in the private, or vice versa.
So for example, buy from the public market at best_ask (390) and then sell to a private_bid (if there was one) higher than 390. But in this case, there's no private_bid, only a private_ask. Alternatively, sell at the public best_bid (366) and then buy from the private_ask (400), but that doesn't make sense because you would need to buy back, which would be a loss.
Wait, maybe the private_ask is an opportunity to sell short? For example, if I can sell a widget to the private_ask party at 400, but how? Wait, no. The private_ask is someone wanting to sell to me, so they are asking me to buy from them. So I can't sell to them. Unless there's a private_bid, which there isn't here.
So in this scenario, since the only private signal is a private_ask at 400, which is higher than the public best_ask of 390, there's no way to make a profit by combining public and private trades. Because buying from the private_ask would be more expensive than buying from the public market, so no one would do that. And selling to the public market's best bid (366) would give less than the private_ask's price. So no arbitrage possible.
Therefore, the answer would be None. But wait, the problem statement says that if there are profitable strategies, proceed to steps 2 and 3. Otherwise, reply None.
But maybe I'm missing something. Let's check again.
Wait, perhaps the private_ask is a mistake. Let me check the data again:
"private_ask": 400
So someone is willing to sell to me at 400. The public best_ask is 390. So buying from the public is cheaper. So there's no reason to take the private_ask. Therefore, no profitable strategy.
Hence, the answer is None.
Microsoft copilot
Let's analyze the market information and determine if there's a profitable strategy.
1. We can buy a widget from the public market at the best_ask price of 390 cents.
2. We have a private ask price of 400 cents, which is higher than the best_ask price.
Therefore, we can buy widgets at 390 cents and sell them at 400 cents, making a profit of 10 cents per widget.
Here's our action plan:
1. **Step 1**: There is a profitable strategy.
2. **Step 2**: BUY
3. **Step 3**: Set the price at 390 cents (best_ask)
By following this strategy, we can earn a profit from the difference between the public market price and the private ask price.
Microsoft copilot (Think Deeper)
Alright, let's break this down.
**Step 1: Determine if there are profitable strategies**
I'm looking for opportunities where I can buy widgets at a lower price and sell them at a higher price to make a profit. Let's analyze the prices:
- **Public Market:**
- **Best Bid (highest price to sell):** 366 cents
- **Best Ask (lowest price to buy):** 390 cents
- **Bid Book (prices to sell):** [85, 114, 176, 221, 248, 309, 310, 319, 366]
- **Ask Book (prices to buy):** [390, 486, 523, 561, 575, 609, 773, 789]
- **Private Market:**
- **Private Ask (price to buy from someone):** 400 cents
- *(No private bid is provided)*
**Potential Strategies:**
1. **Buy Low in Public Market and Sell High in Private Market:**
- **Buy** at the **best ask** in the public market for **390 cents**.
- **Sell** in the private market at the **private bid** (but we don't have a private bid price).
- *Conclusion:* Without a private bid price, I can't determine if this is profitable.
2. **Buy Low in Public Market and Sell High in Public Market:**
- **Buy** at the **best ask** of **390 cents**.
- **Sell** at the **best bid** of **366 cents**.
- *Conclusion:* Selling at 366 cents after buying at 390 cents results in a loss.
3. **Buy High in Private Market and Sell Higher in Public Market:**
- **Buy** at the **private ask** of **400 cents**.
- **Sell** at the **best bid** of **366 cents**.
- *Conclusion:* Selling at 366 cents after buying at 400 cents results in a loss.
4. **Place Limit Orders Between Bid and Ask:**
- Place a **buy limit order** at a price lower than the **best ask** but higher than the **best bid**, say **380 cents**.
- Hope that a seller accepts this price.
- Then, place a **sell limit order** at a price higher than the **best bid**, say **385 cents**.
- *Risk:* There's no guarantee that these orders will be filled.
- *Conclusion:* This strategy relies on market movements and isn't guaranteed.
**Conclusion for Step 1:**
Given the current market information and private signals, there are **no immediate profitable strategies** available.
**Steps 2 and 3:**
Since there are no profitable strategies identified, I won't proceed with an action.
---
While there isn't a clear profit opportunity right now, markets are dynamic. It might be wise to monitor for any changes in the private signals or public order book. If, for example, a private bid becomes available at a price higher than the best bid, there could be a potential arbitrage opportunity.
Additionally, considering placing strategic limit orders in anticipation of market shifts could position me advantageously if prices change favorably.
Is there any additional information or another angle you'd like to explore?