Our development path. Councillors of today and tomorrow. - 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
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
Difficulties exist everywhere, that's no reason to relax.
Difficulties exist everywhere - that's no reason to relax.
This is a very interesting idea. That is, the trader's approach to the program is too primitive and simple - "we need profit and that's all!", while the programmer's approach is more creative - we need additional features, graphics, statistics... Of course, they supplement each other, but the process of EA development is definitely hampered.
In my opinion, traders are too obsessed with optimization. Instead of looking for patterns, they look for the best values of strategy parameters which lacks a proper understanding of patterns.
Optimization has led traders to sink more than random entrances.
Programming is the final, but not the most important stage of creating a profitable EA. 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 high-quality implementation of the idea must be performed by highly skilled programmers.
This may be the case. And even the right approach on a fee basis. But you have to be at least a little bit of a programmer yourself.
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, up to the moment of entering the favorable market dynamics".
Do you disagree with that?
Yes, I disagree. Temporal ineffectiveness of the algorithm cannot be compensated by a human in the general case. I know from personal experience that trying to "pull out" or"level out" leads to even more unfortunate results. You cannot sit on 2 chairs. There must be one principle - either manual trading or ATS. There is no middle ground.
I don't know if Yusuf would agree with me, but it seems to me that 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 can make money, but if you sit on one pattern all the time you are likely to lose.
Although not addressed to me, I want to disagree with the view that any pattern in the market is temporary. It is constant and consistent. Look at the hundred year charts)))).
Optimisation has driven traders to the brink of losing more than the occasional entry.
Optimisation has driven traders to the brink of losing more than the occasional entry.
trader trades
why would he need optimization?
Yes, I disagree. The temporal inefficiency of the algorithm cannot be leveled by humans in the general case. I know from personal experience that trying to "pull out" or"level out" leads to even more unfortunate results. You cannot sit on 2 chairs. There must be one principle - either manual trading or ATS. There is no middle ground.
... There has to be one principle - either manual trading or ATC. There is no middle ground.
No... ATS can be accompanied by manual trading and it cannot pay off.
And if someone else's EA and zero understanding of trading, nothing will help.(((