And that answer would be fine if you also could: a. pay up front...

And that answer would be fine if you also could:
a. pay up front and get virtually unlimited trades for a set price.
b. be able to trade in smaller parcels as well, you cant. Be great if you could test for that hidden supply or demand with a few small trades as well, wouldnt it? you cant.
c. be able to take time on a computer with fast links directly colocated in the ASX and potentially front-run their trades as well. Even if you build your own trading bots, theirs will always outplay yours due to speed.

But alas, we ride on a donkey whilst the instos ride a golden chariot.

As to the ASIC concluding HFT doesnt " on balance" effect market efficiency or effectiveness. Efficient and Effective for "whom"? Its certainly more efficient for the instos who dominate the market, so any conclusion by ASIC will reflect the views of those players, not retail holders. Its certainly more effective in departing money from retail holders hands and delivering it to the big end of town. The reality is the ASX is neither efficient nor effective, HFT or otherwise and never has been for retail holders. The number of trades is too small overall to get to something remotely callable as truly efficient. HFT merely screws an inefficient system even further by increasing further the gap in ability to trade between groups of share owners. They should have said HFT does not make it any more broken than before.

Dont get me started on the role of the Chi-X in obfuscating activity and allowing people to sell to themselves more easily.

Anyway, the world's best Vanadium share is tanking right now counter to any logical FA basis for it. If that isnt market failure I dont know what is and the ASX/Chi-X is the market. Efficient and effective obviously at destroying shareholder value.