Discussion of article "Brute force approach to pattern search" - page 8
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
You still have to dance from some regularity, read my article about the grid and martin, there is a formula, look at it and you will realise that to know the future at least some of its parameters is vital to get something. The assumption that we know nothing and will never know anything leads to the fact that there is no sense to trade in principle, you will only give money to the broker from each deal, that's all. And about the fact that the trend will end it is true, in this connection we can count on a small continuation and reversal or only reversal.
I will correct myself a little: not "useless expectation", but useless dancing around expectation.
In my search for regularities I have gone far into philosophy, more precisely into metaphysics, and even more precisely into mathematics of Pythagoreans.
You've offered 80% of the workshops' profits for a functioning algorithm. B.Williams in "Trading Chaos" writes: "If there was a constantlywinning mechanical system, it would not cost 3 thousand dollars, but would be sold within an hour for 30 million dollars".
But I would put the question a little differently. Are you ready, for example, to learn quantum mechanics, its philosophical foundations and matapparatus in order to create this very mechanical system? Do you have the strength, the will, the brains, finally? Read about James Simons and his team.
Any movement must have a purpose.
Lots of mystery - interesting, but without details a poorly drawn idea of the process.
I.e. you change a window until you get a certain geometric shape in this window?
I'll correct myself a bit: not "useless expectation", but useless dancing around expectation.
In my search for regularities I went far into philosophy, more precisely into metaphysics, and even more precisely into the mathematics of the Pythagoreans.
You've offered 80% of the workshops' profits for a working algorithm. B.Williams in "Trading Chaos" writes: "If there were a constantlywinning mechanical system, it would not cost 3 thousand dollars, but would be sold within an hour for 30 million dollars".
But I would put the question a little differently. Are you ready, for example, to learn quantum mechanics, its philosophical foundations and matapparatus in order to create this very mechanical system? Do you have the strength, the desire, the brains, finally? Read about James Simons and his team.
Any movement must have a purpose.
I used to do a lot of maths, physics. I used to read a little quantum mechanics, but I quickly abandoned it because I don't care about quantum mechanics now. Many people have such systems, but their problem is that their expectation is too small. Although maybe it would be worth just to take them all hang on demo at least, maybe one or two will work. Personally, I have long been not looking for the grail in the sense in which it is presented by Forex audience. For me it is rather a small but stable profit, from zero to one hundred per cent per annum approximately. Anything higher than that raises big questions. It is impossible to win constantly because the price is the result of interaction of many factors, or more precisely a function of many variables, the type of which cannot be reliably established. You can only make an approximate analogue of the price as a function of itself, and it will not be a function of the price itself, but a function describing the expectation of some values of the original function. There is always a random component and of course it will always dominate. And we have only bars at our disposal. If we collect data from all exchanges and process it somehow ) and then computer power will not be enough ) we will have to make cloud services ) and nobody needs it ) .
The article is interesting, but bruteforcing is only suitable for short-term forecasting, unless you set an area in which there is an a priori pattern. Otherwise, it is a search of infinite variants
Bruteforce is also a tool, you can use it for the whole history. Then it will be long term. But in general, it is really better for the short term. It is faster to search and you don't have to worry about how it will be further, you can trade a couple of three times and calm down, and then you can search again). In fact, the only difference is that we do not know the nature of the pattern and we as something uncomfortable from it) the unknown. It's another thing when we first wrote the concept, formulas, made the system and it works ). We convince ourselves that everything is right I am a genius and I was just lucky that this system just in a different form found the same pattern DDD . I had such examples )) . I already take it with humour ) )
I used to do a lot of maths and physics. I used to read a little quantum mechanics, but I quickly abandoned it because I am not interested in quantum mechanics now. Many people have such systems, but their problem is that their expectation is too small. Although maybe it would be worth just to take them all hang on demo at least, maybe one or two will work. Personally, I have long been not looking for the grail in the sense in which it is presented by Forex audience. For me it is rather a small but stable profit, from zero to one hundred per cent per annum approximately. Anything higher than that raises big questions. It is impossible to win constantly because the price is the result of interaction of many factors, or more precisely a function of many variables, the type of which cannot be reliably established. You can only make an approximate analogue of the price as a function of itself, and it will not be a function of the price itself, but a function describing the expectation of some values of the original function. There is always a random component and of course it will always dominate. And we have only bars at our disposal. If we collect data from all exchanges and process it somehow ) and then computer power will not be enough ) we will have to make cloud services ) and nobody needs it ) .
I understand very well that a "technician" does not care about philosophy, neither by and large. But the problem is that the theoretical knowledge (including that about expectation) that you have received at school, institute, on courses is miserable and logically defective, and it is impossible to build any system on such a foundation. The question of what you are ready to do, and first of all, whether you are ready to study further, in this case is far from idle and rhetorical. Let me explain: I am a humanitarian by education, programming and stock exchange are hobbies. Nevertheless, there are certain results that can be shown and commented on. As I understand, your mail is private_w.hudson@mail.ru. If you don't mind, I will send some materials. Maybe, in personal correspondence, we can understand each other better.
But the problem is that the theoretical knowledge you received at school and institute is miserable and logically flawed.
Really?
Seriously?
теор.знания(в том числе и про мат.ожидание), которые Вы получили в школе, институте, на курсах, убогие и логически ущербные, и построить какую-либо систему на таком фундаменте невозможно.
send it over, I'll take a look. Regarding this line, everything is built on this foundation. Theory, plus practice(writing EAs) + a lot of time. There is no other recipe unfortunately. I do not know any philosopher who would get rich on the market ). Without the skills of a technician you can leave your whole life here. Personally, I am interested in the result and only. I have already enjoyed the process for a long time
send it over, I'll take a look. Regarding this line, everything is built on this foundation. Theory, plus practice(writing EAs) + a lot of time. There is no other recipe unfortunately. I do not know any philosopher who would get rich on the market ). Without the skills of a technician you can leave your whole life here. Personally, I am interested in the result and only. I have already enjoyed the process for a long time
They tell about King Solomon, he was a great sage. He bought grain during 7 harvest years, then in the next 7 dry years he rose well on it, about Thales they say that he speculated on olive oil so much that he had enough for the rest of his life. I have already mentioned Simons and Williams - doctors of sciences, there without philosophy. You can dig up more, but that's not the point.
"Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and spacious is the way that leads to destruction, and many go in by it," Matthew 7:13.
The rest in a private message.