Gathering a team to develop an IO (decision tree/forest) in relation to trend strategies - page 4
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
My view is that no one wants to waste time, because, based on the experience of the "Machine Learning..." thread, almost no one has been able to show meaningful results. And there are rather smart people there. And this sad experience scares everybody away. IMHO, of course.
So maybe if people get together, there will be a shift, or a doubt about the very likelihood of using MO for trading?
Having purely indicators, optimization is not helpful. It looks like manual tweaking of indicators and visual review of what came out of it all. I sometimes use this method myself. I attribute indicators to chart and change their settings to see where the entry points are. Then I apply these settings to indicators in an Expert Advisor and test them to check if they are correct or not. If there are more or less acceptable entries, I begin to think about exiting positions. It should also be considered. Successful entering does not guarantee the profitability of the TS. It is also necessary to exit normally, if an unsuccessful entry occurred. Sometimes simple stops only aggravate the situation, rather than improve it.
I use trawl in my basic strategy, it allows me to do targeting not very difficult for trend strategies.
You could try to stop campaigning and set the first task that you plan to solve in a team.
Maybe it will be solved at once and the team will not be needed. ))
What do you find easy to solve, let's discuss?
So maybe if people get together there will be a shift, or a doubt about the very likelihood of using IOs for trading?
Personally, I have no doubts about the use of MO. But only as an additional tool to the main strategy. That is, to use NM as a classifier.
And it is possible to unite people - you only need to demonstrate leadership qualities.
Personally, I have no doubts about the advisability of using MoD. But only as a complementary tool to the main strategy. That is, to use the NS as a classifier.
And it is possible to unite people - you only need to demonstrate leadership qualities.
It seems to me that NS will work great with a stationary structure because of its mathematical nature (function fitting), but the market, if stationary, is in infinity. That's how I see it now... However, it doesn't matter in this thread.
About leadership qualities - it can only help if people want it, you can't force it. I remember one employee told me that with me he feels that he works like at a spaceport and every day we launch a rocket to Mars, in general I can make things work, but the employees are paid, but on a voluntary basis it should be different - more collective management of decisions made. Or whoever has the shell speaks... and make the shell rotate once a week or according to other rules - negotiable.
What do you see as an easy solution, let's discuss?
Why are you twisting things around? I didn't say easy solution.
The ideal situation is when team members complement each other. What you are planning to solve is probably already decided and lying around (or used less efficiently) because the author of the solution doesn't have your competence. Then you have found each other. ))
PS.
Because of the need to somehow explain what you need to do to people who don't have your competences.
Why twist things around. I didn't say an easy solution.
The ideal situation is when team members complement each other. And it is possible that what you are just planning to solve has already been solved and is lying idle (or used less effectively) because the author of the solution does not have your competence. Then you have found each other. ))
No, I'm not twisting your words, I just thought what if you already have what I need and you've estimated it as an easy task to accomplish.
Yes, I agree that someone may have it theoretically already implemented ... but better to pine over the gold than to share it with mortals ;)
No, I wasn't twisting it, I was just thinking that maybe you already have something that I need and you've assessed it as an easy task to implement.
Yes, I agree that someone may have it theoretically already implemented ... Butit is better to pine over the gold rather than share with mortals ;)
Of course not. )))
It's just that no one will be able to tell you everything he knows or everything he has done. )))
But it's better to pine over the gold than to share it with mortals ;)
PS.
This is why you need to explain what you need to people who don't have your competence.
I may not have the competence of these people - to explain something, you need to see the interest, then answering mutual questions you can come to the truth. I am open to dialogue.
Of course you are not. )))
Simply no one will be able to tell you everything he knows or everything he has done. )))
Yeah, that's understandable, but what's not understandable is why tell "everything"...