Our development path. Councillors of today and tomorrow. - page 9
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
An advisor should simply be an earner, not a "friend of the man" to talk to.
When an EA earns money, it is a friend, otherwise it is a shitty enemy.
Maybe I'm repeating myself, but there are a lot of options for creating profitable EAs.
The market is not gases). Everything is under control there.
Responsibility cannot be shared. There is no such thing as a wrong decision, because a decision is an act of both volition and of law, made at a particular moment.
And the Expert Advisor is not short of money, so we are responsible for everything ourselves - both for the naughty hands and for the degree of trust in the Expert Advisor.
I partly agree with you. The division of responsibility is imaginary. The real responsibility lies with the individual. But it does not mean that the imaginary division of responsibility is not necessary at all. It is a psychological need. People often rely on somebody to save themselves from responsibility (there is a book devoted to this topic by Fromm devoted to this topic - "Escape from Freedom").
From this perspective, the close interaction of the user with the advisor through dialogues, and "playing" with it in shifting responsibility back and forth, can be much more interesting and productive for him than the "charge-fire" system (set it up, optimize, run it).
When interacting, the user projects himself onto the object he is interacting with. If it is a person, it assumes its qualities; if it is an animal, it talks to it; if it is a robot, it sees it as an intelligent being (unconsciously).
My point is that by expanding the area of user interaction with a robot (Expert Advisor), we will get a significant increase in user interest due to emotional projection and interaction.
It's not there yet, but... this phenomenon is likely to emerge.
Brainstorming is always a good idea. Now, as I understand it, suggestions are made, but not criticised.
Nevertheless, I would like to point out: there are no programmers-traders, there are programmers who earn exclusively by their craft in the Market, and there are traders who do not program at all. The subject matter may be of interest to the former only optionally, and not to the latter.
Now - the main beneficiaries of the subject: programming traders and trading programmers. My point is that reflection of these two groups must be made separately. And it is clear that their architecture will be absolutely different.
Yes, they are. When bringing up this subject, I'm addressing more to Expert Advisor developers than to traders. The former expect profit from the market, the latter expect profit from the market. Their viewpoints are different. I've already written about this. Traders talk only about profits. All my attempts to get them interested in developing trading programs here on the forum failed. The reason is not clear to me. EA developers may have thought about program development but they listen to traders and ... They agree.
And in vain.
After all, it is not certain that traders will not accept new Expert Advisors with more interaction possibilities. They haven't seen them yet. Under their statements there is no clear logic, only "no and that's it!
So if you have thoughts on the architecture of councils - what should be in them and how it should work - speak up. This topic is just for that.
P.S. There's a documentary on YouTube about Chicago traders in the "hole". What psychological difficulties they faced when the market and all trading gradually went online and trading became electronic. How they laughed about it at first, then protested and then adapted. People are conservative and they are resentful of innovations. But we see that progress is inexorable.
The main question is: What can I include in my EAs besides the trading strategy?
A self-optimising function so that every n period of time it optimises itself and adjusts to the mood of the market.
self-optimisation function so that every n period of time it optimises itself and adapts to the mood of the market.
Self-optimization. Ok.
In my understanding, self-optimization is an automatic adjustment of strategy parameters.
Self-optimization should take place at a certain moment. The moment should be chosen automatically.
Here, we already have the first basics of the EA architecture.
We could go on and on... Let's see what we get at the end).
For some reason, no one has mentioned money management.
A unit that will control the actions of the EA and limit its trading. Change lots, cancel orders, etc... In general - to reduce risks if necessary.
This block should have settings. In the list of its functions, it should also have Send requests and notifications to the user. We will not make its work completely hidden.
On the one hand, the block should regulate actions of the Expert Advisor and of the user, on the other hand, it should be regulated itself.
Let's imagine that the money management block and self-optimization block work without interaction with the user. That is, each of these blocks will act in accordance with the initial program, which does not provide for human intervention and notification.
A person will not know what is going on inside the Expert Advisor, how it works, what it does... A person will sit and blindly hope for positive results, wondering if everything is correct. A person wants to be that dependent?
The need for such blocks in an EA seems to be obvious to everyone (I speak about money management, statistical engine, self-optimizer and statistics analyzer). At the same time, many traders on this forum claim that we need minimum settings, no need in GUI and no interaction with Expert Advisor. But the above-mentioned blocks require customization and close interaction with the user . They require a complex architecture and intellectual interactivity of the Expert Advisor.
How to explain this contradiction of traders' desires? - "We want everything in EAs, but we need only the minimum","We need self-optimization, money management, AI, MO, but nothing but a profitable strategy in an EA!")
Maybe, people who declare that there should be nothing but a profitable strategy in Expert Advisors still believe in the Grail?
So it's belief in the Grail that inhibits development?)
Then everything is clear. But belief in the Grail is a sign of immaturity of a trader. His immaturity.
We must not judge by what immature traders say about what must be in an Expert Advisor.
I hope I did not offend anyone.
Dreamers... if you knew what the market is all about - you'd be very disappointed... I make 150-170% profit a year, and there's nowhere without programming) and that only with the most trusted brokers there are only a few in the Western world. All the rest are very unreliable ... 200-300% ... where are you ... millionaires...