ATC.Experience, knowledge and practice. - page 6

New comment
 
Sergey Lebedev:

This is where two things are important to understand:

1) By definition, any "homemade" robots developed and/or potentially developed by individuals at home, despite their personal obsession to find a robo-grial, are in reality hundreds of times weaker than automated and semi-automated trading systems of large trading funds and investment houses (GoldmanSachs, BlackRock etc.), where hundreds of creative mathematicians, strategists and programmers work; Therefore, in a competition between robots "crowd" algodtraders will always lose (the results of their robo-strategies are approximated and calculated by neural networks, just like the behavior of gambling traders with independent decision-making),

2) Artisanal robots are many times weaker than a human brain trained to solve dynamic computational problems generated by news and trades of trading funds.

This leads to one simple conclusion: there is no sense for a single trader to spend time on algorithmic junk trading, but only to train their own "neuronet" to solve manual trading problems (+ to develop drivers/scanners and other support algorithms in MQL5 or another platform). This is the way of gladiators in the financial market, practicing and fighting for money.

About me: came to this conclusion last summer, after 5 years of algo research, and now I'm fully focused on training my brain + developing back-office systems (market scans, risk management, etc.). No WOW results so far, but I'm going this route of learning, coaching-> trading, figuring out my blunders, and trading again. The only downside so far is that I have had to give up alcohol completely.

Interesting reflection.
 
Sergey Lebedev:

There are two points that are important to understand:

1) By definition, any "homemade" robots developed and/or potentially developed by individuals at home, despite their personal obsession to find a robo-grial, are in reality hundreds of times weaker than automated and semi-automated trading systems of large trading funds and investment houses (GoldmanSachs, BlackRock etc.), where hundreds of creative mathematicians, strategists and programmers work; Therefore, in a competition between robots "crowd" algodtraders will always lose (the results of their robo-strategies are approximated and calculated by neural networks, just like the behavior of gambling traders with autonomous decision-making),

2) Artisanal robots are many times weaker than a human brain trained to solve dynamic computational problems generated by news and trades of trading funds.

This leads to one simple conclusion: there is no sense for a single trader to spend time on algo-jobbing, but only to train their own "neuronet" to solve manual trading problems (+ to develop drivers/scanners and other support algorithms in MQL5 or another platform). This is the way of gladiators in the financial market, training and fighting for money.

About me: came to this conclusion last summer, after 5 years of algo-searching, and now fully focused on coaching my brain + developing back-office systems (market scans, risk management, etc.). No WOW results so far, but I'm going this route of learning, coaching-> trading, figuring out my blunders, and trading again. The only downside so far is that I have had to give up alcohol completely.

what is the definition? give me the exact source :-)

and the comparison criteria and TC of "funds and houses" ?

About you: I guess it's just fatigue and frustration.

 
Computer programs won in chess, won in poker. In the first case the information is in open access, the advantage in the first move only, in the second case (poker) the information is partially accessible cards of opponents are closed and thus there are options with bluffing i.e. there is a self-training system collecting data and forming behavioural models, and this is psychoanalysis. Information is versatile and invariant and difficult to structure.
 
Aleksandr Rykhlik:
Interesting reflection.

agree

 
Sergey Lebedev:

Two things are important to understand here:

...

About me: I came to this conclusion last summer, after 5 years of algo-searching, and now I'm fully focused on coaching my brain + developing back-office systems (market scans, risk management, etc.). No WOW results so far, but I'm going this route of learning, coaching-> trading, figuring out my blunders, and trading again. The only downside so far is that I have had to give up alcohol completely.

It is quite possible that in 5 years' time you will be back to the algo research).

 
khorosh:

It's quite possible that in five years' time you'll be back to algo research).

no

I'd even say that's NOT a disadvantage.

a sober mind, fresh thoughts from a 100% working brain

does the right thing.

 
Renat Akhtyamov:

no

I'd even say that's NOT a minus.

a sober mind, fresh thoughts from a 100% working brain

Rightly so.

The disadvantage is that you have to be constantly stuck at the monitor, and that sooner or later gets boring.

 
khorosh:

The disadvantage is that you have to be stuck at the monitor all the time, and sooner or later you get bored.

The risk of reducing it is simply
 
Sergey Lebedev:

Here it is important to understand two points:

1) By definition, any "homemade" robots developed and/or potentially developed by individuals at home, despite their personal obsession to find a robo-grial, are in reality hundreds of times weaker than automated and semi-automated trading systems of large trading funds and investment houses (GoldmanSachs, BlackRock etc.), where hundreds of creative mathematicians, strategists and programmers work; Therefore, in a competition between robots "crowd" algodtraders will always lose (the results of their robo-strategies are approximated and calculated by neural networks, just like the behavior of gambling traders with independent decision-making),

2) Artisanal robots are many times weaker than a human brain trained to solve dynamic computational problems generated by news and trades of trading funds.

This leads to one simple conclusion: there is no sense for a single trader to spend time on algorithmic junk trading, but only to train their own "neuronet" to solve manual trading problems (+ development of drivers/scanners and other support algorithms in MQL5 or another platform). This is the way of gladiators in the financial market, training and fighting for money.

About me: came to this conclusion last summer, after 5 years of algo research, and now I'm fully focused on training my brain + developing back-office systems (market scans, risk management, etc.). No WOW results so far, but I'm going this route of learning, coaching-> trading, figuring out my blunders, and trading again. The only downside so far is that I have had to give up alcohol completely.

No neural network can show you where the market will go with more than 53% accuracy.
Funds and houses only focus on stocks and indices more than currencies. They stupidly put in a billion and make 10-15% a year and live happily ever after.
Forex is a thousand times more complicated.
You can make money on it alone, knowing the structure of any market. Of course nothing will be written about it anywhere. Of course to understand and calculate it, and to see it you need a brain.
But vision is deceptive - where the brain says buy, the robot calculates the probability and says 50-50.)
In today's world no brain can calculate more objectively than a robot.
The brain is of course primary, but in terms of objectivity the robot is primary.
Domestic robots are no different from industrial robots)
Differences are constructed only by those who believe that complexity is a guarantee of success. But that is not the case. The simpler and more perfect and
algorithm, the better and more reliably it works out all possible variants in the market.
 
If you want to know the composition of a hot dog, you don't have to break it down into atoms, just do it by hand;)
1234567
New comment