The arrival of a new generation of trading software. What should the EA interface be like? - page 8
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I think the error in your reasoning is the wrong premise, or rather an ingrained stereotype of what an ideal advisor should be. For some reason, people think that the more an advisor replaces a person in decision-making, the better. They probably believe that it is possible to create an advisor who will make the right decisions everywhere and always? In most cases this is the opinion of amateurs who have never written a robot. If such an EA could be created, the "chop dough" button would replace any interface and make it absolutely unnecessary.
Indeed, where does this belief come from? At the moment, AI does not exist, and all EAs that claim to use it are most likely empty or in general, 100% "sinkers". Is it smart to neglect the tool of manual regulation of the EA, on the work of which your deposit depends, relying only on the myth of a completely independent and autonomous Expert Advisor, providing the linear growth of the deposit? Where to find such an Expert Advisor?
It is like getting on a cart without brakes going down a narrow, winding mountain trail, and closing your eyes instead of saddling the donkey.
When I thought about launching my forex robot, my instinct for self-preservation told me "Do the interface!")
You know, I've been testing different strategies for quite a long time. I have extracted an understanding of how the market works. I realised that it is very complex and volatile. I have learned that it is impossible to judge any strategy unambiguously, because at one moment it can be very profitable, and at another it can be completely unprofitable.
My thesis is: an EA interface can be a great help in real trading and in good hands. It will increase the possibility of interacting with the program and improve the quality of the trading process. The interface will make it possible to trade at a new level previously unavailable to algotraders. Try to refute that.
A three-dimensional graph of X and Y and Z.
At the expense of what, if, in the end, the decision is made by humans? You do not believe in the possibilities of auto-trading, and I do not believe in the possibilities of humans, and I do not believe in the possibilities of symbiosis either. We must put all our energies into formalizing the laws of the market, however complicated they may seem. Human intervention inmarket analysis must be eliminated. The collective human mind must be formalized and this collective mind is probably stronger than the mind of an individual. Here is the main argument for excluding an individual person from the trading process. If you consider yourself excellent at trading, be kind enough to formalise them. If not, it's all at the level of "gut feeling", which fails 95% of traders.
Goodness!
What are you talking about?
Someone will need the interface. Not everyone will.
Goodness!
What are you talking about?
Someone will need the interface. Not everyone will.
INTERFACE!!! Whatever you want to call it - rich, scarce, etc. All this is just another "toy", you need a trading panel - ask us, there are options, links do not lay out. Bidding statistics - pletta there are options, I do not give links.
In fact, all this is beginning to "smell" of advertising... :-)
It is clear that all the TC are different, someone is not 100% formalizable in code perhaps, therefore, of course, will be more pleasant, to handle in some kind of graphical, colour interface with a parallel watching immediately real-time reports and statistics of the plum process! :-)
1. At the expense of what, if at the end of the day, the decision is made by man? You do not believe in auto-trading, I do not believe in human capabilities and I do not believe in symbiosis.
2. We must put all our efforts into the formalization of market laws, no matter how complicated they may seem. Human intervention in the processof market analysis should be eliminated.
3. Thecollective human mind has to be formalised and this collective mind is surely stronger than the mind of the individual. Here is the main argument for excluding the individual person from the trading process. If you consider yourself excellent at trading, be kind enough to formalise them. If not, it's all at the level of "gut feeling" which fails 95% of traders.
1. My concept of algotrading does not believe that decisions should always be made by humans, nor do I agree that decisions should always be made by an advisor. Humans have a "harmful" human factor - slowness, uncertainty and emotionality - but it is compensated for by the "helpful" factor - the ability to make wise decisions relying on experience, knowledge, and intuition. Automats, in their turn, are characterized by dependence on a limited algorithm, written by a human, which creates stiffness in actions, immutability and straightforwardness, which are compensated by useful properties - the speed of reaction, precision of calculations and irrepressibility in work.
I believe in a successful form of symbiosis between the human mind and a sufficiently perfect automaton, in which the best qualities of both parties show up, summing up to the peak of efficiency.
2. There are things that exist hypothetically (even mathematically) but not physically.
"Formalising market patterns" is a task from the realm of theoretical mathematics. You want to throw the forces of the collective mind into creating a formula that should generalise all market phenomena and calculate a specific form of market behaviour for each specific situation. I think you might as well try to create a formula for "everything in the world", or a general table of "elements of being".
3. The formalisation by the collective mind of itself, is a supremely interesting task, far beyond the bounds of market trade. The attainment of a higher form of self-awareness may be the natural purpose of Reason as such. However, it may take an entire period of civilisation's history to achieve this.
At the moment, there are no advisors to rely on in all cases of life, and the belief in their possible existence is based on hypothesis, and therefore talking about the complete exclusion of humans from the process of trading, (and moreover, the fact that understanding the price as an equivalent of the value of things is only human, while for a robot it is just numbers), deprives the meaning of market trading and turns the market into a global casino.
But, this is my opinion and you can disregard these arguments and stick to your opinion.
A three-dimensional graph of X and Y and Z.
A very good idea: to show price movements in the interaction of 8 pairs, here, after some training, it will be possible to get a sufficient prediction ratio even on small TFs...how will it be on the screen - will it also roughly indicate with an arrow the likely direction of all these pairs in the overall bundle???
I would like to remind you, dear forum members, that we are discussing standards for a new type of EA with an interface, which will probably appear in the near future, as the technology for easy and user-friendly interface creation is in its final stages. Therefore, I invite suggestions on the following questions: