No problem, killick - your definitions of "iceberg" are valid too - and they have the seal of approval from the sites your quoted. They actually overlap mine. My point is - what is the purpose of the traders creating an "iceberg" situation?

For the pros, the point is to do one thing while signalling another. With the definition(s) you provided, the point is to transact a large amount without signalling that to the market. In this case, a large order is broken into many small pieces, and some of the order is transacted immediately, wiping it from the bid/asks.

With the definition I gave, which is more vernacular, the point is to acquire or sell a large number of shares, while signalling the opposite to the market. In this case, a counter-order or a number of counter-orders are put in to throw the market off, and once the market is pushed in the desired direction by the "fake-out" iceberg, the "real" pieces of the desired iceberg, if you want to call it that, the one that the trader actually wants to transact, are entered piece by piece at more advantageous prices.

In either case, the trader tries to get the job done, moving a lot of shares at a good price, without the market reading his true intentions.

Thanks for your additional information! / c

P.S. There is a third, colloquial definition, where a large out-of-the-money bid or ask stops the market from moving toward its price, as it is perceived as insurmountable, in the same way as if you have a ship, you are better off avoiding icebergs, as you will lose the fight. Once again, this definition overlaps the other two - who placed the orders making the iceberg and for what purpose? Time of day, size of orders, round numbers, and order sequence are the clues to read.