Our development path. Councillors of today and tomorrow. - page 3
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
If a user bought a good EA in the market, but was immediately hit by 'bad' market dynamics, should he throw the EA away? If the EA does not have external control, there is nothing else for it, but if the EA has a system of user control, then, as I said your "...external control can offset the temporary inefficiency of the algorithm and "pull" it out of drawdowns, right up to the moment of entering the favorable market dynamics".
Don't you agree with that?
Vladimir, I would specify - not a gift, but experience
A gift plus experience= that's even cooler))
Any advisor (trading robot) is always a certain model, an imitation of market dynamics.
But because the process of price movements of financial instruments is a very complex, multifactorial process, any EA is only a little bit closer to the real market model.
Therefore, in my opinion, the development of analytical (including trading) algorithms will follow the path of increasing the complexity of the model to achieve acceptable modeling accuracy.
And as for programming methods - they will follow, will be secondary to the implementation of such models.
1. Putting logic into an EA based on theory or a found pattern is the beginning of creating an EA.
2. If nothing goes well during testing, we simply change the logic or parameters, but if nothing goes well in trading? Change the Expert Advisor? But if we do not have a new EA, but we can control it. What if the external control compensates for the temporary ineffectiveness of the algorithm and "pulls" it out of the drawdown? Right up to the moment of entering the favourable market dynamics?
3. not to demand from the Expert Advisor the blockbuster results - is to be realistic. Being realistic means knowing that the Expert Advisor is not perfect. Knowing this - means we allow ourselves to intervene. For the timely intervention, you need special tools. Convenient settings.
You also need notifications and reports.
2. to be able to control it - means not to have an Expert Advisor. Complex processes, which include the market - is not a human mind.
3. to be realistic - it means to know that the Expert Advisor is perfect enough to understand that no one will allow you to exceed the refinancing rate many times.
gift plus experience= that's even cooler))
there haven't been people like this in the world since 1970, i don't think so
a gift is a very easy way to go
it's more complicated than that.
It's easy if you know what to program and how to program it.
But there is a certain division between programmers and traders, which hinders the mass creation of super EAs. But there are undoubtedly a few "super" EAs, but they combine the qualities of a trader and a programmer. And the natural talent, of course)))
That is a very interesting idea. That is, the trader's approach to the program is too primitive and simple - "I just need profit!", and the programmer's approach is more creative - I need additional features, graphics, statistics... Of course, they complement each other, but the process of EA development is definitely hampered.
In my opinion, traders are too focused on optimization. Instead of searching for patterns, they search for the best values of strategies which lack correct understanding of patterns.
It's easy if you know what to program and how to program it.
But there is a certain division between programmers and traders, which hinders the mass creation of super EAs. But there are undoubtedly a few "super" EAs, but they combine the qualities of a trader and a programmer. And the natural talent, of course)))
Programming is the final, but not the most important step in the creation of a profitable Expert Advisor. The creator of the theory and logic of the EA must understand the principles and capabilities of the programming process, and this is enough at the beginning. The quality of the implementation of the idea should be done by high-class programmers.
Any advisor (trading robot) is always a certain model, an imitation of market dynamics.
But because the process of price movements of financial instruments is a very complex, multifactorial process, any EA is only a little bit closer to the real market model.
Therefore, in my opinion, the development of analytical (including trading) algorithms will follow the path of increasing the complexity of the model to achieve acceptable modeling accuracy.
And as for programming methods - they will follow, will be secondary to the implementation of such models.
If you look at graphs from a century ago, you won't notice any difference in the behaviour of the tool. The curves are monotonous, but therein lies the mystery of the law of the universe. So it seems to you without certain skills and knowledge that the market changes. But it simply obeys the law.
I don't know if Yusuf would agree with me, but I think any pattern in the market is temporary. They come and go at a certain point, along with the factors that generated them. If you catch a temporary pattern, you may earn some profit but if you sit on the same pattern all the time, you are likely to lose.
excellent
this is the right position
but also the timing is uncertain