Discussion: Quantum computers vs. Stone-Age-Backtesting in MetaTrader + how to compete with professionals as an individual trader

[trader988]

Hello, I'd like to share a link about the development of the fastest quantum computer on earth for those who are interested.

Think about how incredibly slow creating and backtesing of EAs today is for the average individual trader compared to what's possible in our world. Doing stuff on MetaTrader is like being in the stone age I guess.

Look: Backtesting means working with data that is all available, price development that already happened in the past and therefore doesn't need to be re-imagined in any way. It is all there. And just because you add some simple, basic indicators, backtesting starts becoming really slow for the average trader. Our systems don't even need to forward-think. It is ridiculous. It feels like living in the stone age and not in the present.

Also think about the fast computers that Hedge Funds, Banks etc. use in order to create and run algorithmic trading - and they are far away from quantum computing I guess. Normal traders using EAs on MetaTrader mostly (or only?) use static systems while the professional competition uses dynamic systems that adjust to changing environmets - not even using quantum computing. So individual traders are so far behind the competition that it could make you cry (lol).

How could creating EAs on MetaTrader develop with new technical possibilities and how can backtesting become faster for individual traders? How can individual traders be enabled to create adapting trading systems that are agile like it should be in the ever evolving market environments?

And do you even think individual traders can compete with competitors of the professional trading scene with EAs created on MetaTrader? I'm more on the side of manual discretionary trading - thesis: in order to be able to succeed in the competition, individual traders should use their brains and intuition as an attempt to find an edge when our personal computers and automated trading systems are most probably way worse than those of professional competitors.

What do you think?

https://www.barrons.com/articles/this-is-what-the-worlds-most-powerful-quantum-computer-looks-like-51592513735

[Eleni Anna Branou]

I don't think that the problem of non-profitable EAs is the lack of computing power.

[trader988]

Eleni Anna Branou:

I don't think that the problem of non-profitable EAs is the lack of computing power.

Sure, the problem of non-profitable EAs is most likely the lack of a working strategy.

But can a static EA provide a working strategy in the long run?

So your statement pretty much says that static EAs (of which we know that they don't need strong computing power) can return convincing results in the long run?

So what do you think matters most in this regard?

I stated that I believe market conditions constantly change and therefore I think agile EAs are needed, EAs, that adapt in an intelligent way to the market conditions. So that kind of EA does not always use the same parameters in every market condition. Static EAs can't adapt, but flexible, fast algorithms can adapt and learn (using computing power), and so can humans (individual, manual traders) including their experience.

A static EA cannot learn-> you don't need computing power and your results will most probably not be sufficient in the long run

An agile EA with artificial intelligence can learn-> you need computing power and your results might be convincing

A human can learn-> you have computing power inside yourself and your results might be convincing

What do you think?

[Eleni Anna Branou]

trader988:

Sure, the problem of non-profitable EAs is most likely the lack of a working strategy.

But can a static EA provide a working strategy in the long run?

So your statement pretty much says that static EAs (of which we know that they don't need strong computing power) can return convincing results in the long run?

So what do you think matters most in this regard?

I stated that I believe market conditions constantly change and therefore I think agile EAs are needed, EAs, that adapt in an intelligent way to the market conditions. So that kind of EA does not always use the same parameters in every market condition. Static EAs can't adapt, but flexible, fast algorithms can adapt and learn (using computing power), and so can humans (individual, manual traders) including their experience.

A static EA cannot learn-> you don't need computing power and your results will most probably not be sufficient in the long run

An agile EA with artificial intelligence can learn-> you need computing power and your results might be convincing

A human can learn-> you have computing power inside yourself and your results might be convincing

What do you think?

I've seen simple (static as you say) EAs giving very profitable results and super advanced self-learning EAs performing extremely poorly, so my experience tells me that a good and feasible strategy is the most important element of a succesful trading system.