Optimisation vs Fitting in the story - page 9

New comment
 
Uladzimir Izerski:

So I don't deny market history at all. It already exists and contributes to the future.

Vladimir, is it easier with your hands?

Personally, I can't stop watching the signal rankings.

Algotrading is 100% - the profit percentage is an order of magnitude lower than that of semi-automatics.

Version - there is some insider's insight into the robots' actions.
 
Renat Akhtyamov:
Vladimir, is it easier with your hands?

The robot is faster.

I can show you with my hands on Skype))

 
Uladzimir Izerski:

The robot is faster.

I can show you with my hands on Skype))

That's not what I meant.
 
Renat Akhtyamov:
That's not what I meant.

I'll rest then.

 
Uladzimir Izerski:

But there is no edge.

Neither optimisation nor fitting will be the exact parameters of the future market.

There is a living market, with its own subtleties of small nuances of history, but subject to the current moment.

That is the most important thing.

Tics are the most precise moment of truth.

But I don't use them . It's an expensive treat. You can skip them and lower the discreteness.

You're trying to separate the two.)

The moment of truth is not in the ticks but in the moment the position is opened.

 
Martin_Apis_Bot Cheguevara:

You are nevertheless trying to separate the two)

the moment of truth is not in the ticks but in the moment of opening a position.

Hmmm...

well, and in closing, too.

 
Renat Akhtyamov:

hmm...

well, and in closures as well.

that's also true what you say. But, when opening a position any human or robot is based on either a continuation of the move or a return.

What's interesting is that neither of these will produce a positive result.

Both are equally true in every time frame.

It's just that sometimes the variance of the process tends to infinity. And it changes all the time.

otherwise even just a random normal time process would be very easy to make money on.

123456789
New comment