"The 'perfect' trading system - page 63
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
You should have at least looked into the Quik reference before writing, otherwise you're playing the stock market expert after reading forum gossip :)
What are you pointing at? Or are you pointing your patents in the underground tunnel?
The presence of any functionality in the trading terminal does not guarantee its timely and complete execution.
Explanation. Don't confuse God's gift with the egg. An exchange is one thing, an OTT is another.
In this case, the exchange is your practical activity: advisers, trading, profits-losses. Have I even said a word about it ? If you trade successfully, the flag in your hands. Make a loss - you are not alone. However, that is not enough for you. You're trying to put a theoretical basis for your system. And that's all I was interested in, as I told you 40 pages ago.
Well, you have no theoretical basis. OTT is a fiction. There is no theory that does not contain a single formal assertion. And you don't need to create such a statement either. You can safely trade without it.
But if you have big claims, if you necessarily want to have the theory, and even more general, and all the words with a capital letter, in short, if you want so much scientific glory, then that nonsense which you wrote here, you don't get off.
PS
Personally I absolutely don't care from what motives you play this game. I'm writing all this for you personally. So you can understand why you have so many opponents here. To take your nonsense seriously is to agree to be fooled. No normal person would want that. That's why they try to reason with you. Unfortunately, to no avail.
You don't like "upstarts"? :)
The master is the master - as I want, and so I call / formulate, in the required for me necessary and sufficient degree of formalization.
For example:
The theory of everything
"Theory of everything (TOE) - a hypothetical unified physical and mathematical theory describing all known fundamental interactions. Originally, the term was used ironically to refer to a variety of generalized theories[1]. Over time, the term has gained a foothold in popularizations of quantum physics to refer to a theory that would unify all four fundamental interactions in nature. In the scientific literature the term "unified field theory" is used instead of "theory of everything", nevertheless it should be kept in mind that a theory of everything can also be constructed without using fields, even though the scientific status of such theories may be disputed."
"Theory of everything" doesn't even exist yet, and there's nothing stopping the term from existing :)
And nothing, theoretical physicists do not grieve about it - they are not rude to each other, do not consider themselves smarter than others, and work to their own pleasure.
Consider, that we work at General Theory of Trade (GST), we've thought of a name and directions of development, but we simply had not enough time for formalization.
And then you won't have to feel fooled :)
Try to formalise more :)
Formalising theories for financial markets is not a matter of one day or one year.
Since the founding of the first stock exchange, a lot of people still have not come up with any universal algorithm for making profits.
There is no science of the stock exchange.
And you are expecting a complete formalisation of what the SF and possible synchronisation algorithms might be :) How do I know what options are possible?
I know that there can be many variants and there is no way to formally exclude non-working ones yet, that's why I write "any".
The problem is - wait another 100 years - during this time some more formalized description of OTT will appear :)
But in the meantime what we have is what we have.
You're wrong here, there are a huge number of theories. From what came to mind the first time - Shiryaev "Fundamentals of stochastic financial mathematics. Volume 2: THEORY. The book has 600 pp of clearly formalized theories, you can still find a bunch of sources with theories. Objectively, colleagues are quite right, if you write about your theory, and expose it so seriously, then formalization is definitely needed, at least to be understood correctly.
Do you really not understand what it says? Quotes, prices are bids, what Reshetov said, supply and demand. Reshetov is right and you are an ignoramus. Worse than that, you're a militant ignoramus.
I feel like I'm talking to a bot :)
Why are you pointing at some references? Or are you pointing out patents you bought in an underground tunnel?
The presence of any functionality in the trading terminal does not guarantee its timely and complete execution.
Reshetov, you are now on my ignore list.
You'd better tell us about the quanta, it's getting boring.
I'm preparing new material. I'll post it in a separate thread soon.
===
VictorArt is right in the main point: synchronisation is the key to the solution. It is a pity that many people on this forum are not familiar with rhythmodynamics. Otherwise, by common efforts we would have solved this problem long ago - creating an ideal trading system.
This is where you are wrong, there are a huge number of theories. From what comes to mind the first time - Shiryaev "Fundamentals of Stochastic Financial Mathematics. Volume 2: THEORY. The book has 600 pp of clearly formalized theories, you can still find a bunch of sources with theories. Objectively, colleagues are quite right, if you write about your theory, and exhibit it so seriously - then formalization is definitely needed, at least to be understood correctly.
At the moment, only the adaptive EA is presented in the form of a strictly formalized source code.
The OTT is presented in the form of an abstract description, together with the adaptive EA - that's enough for starters.
The point is that the adaptive EA is created in the framework of OTT, which specifies the principle of creating new trading strategies.
Others have the opposite - there are many formal theories, but try to create working trading strategies based on them.
Reshetov, you are now on my ignore list.
So you assume that this will raise the price of your proprietary remedies amongst the inhabitants here?
You'd better learn a little bit about the subject matter and don't embarrass yourself here for nothing.
Reshetov
Why are you pointing to some certificates? Or are you pointing with patents you bought in an underground tunnel?
VictorArt wrote(a) >>
Reshetov, you are now on my ignore list.
Looks like I'm talking to a bot :)
I seem to be talking to an idiot. :) Have the strength and courage to admit your own ignorance.