Discussion of article "Brute force approach to pattern search" - 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
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"......
We are not poor and not greedy, and "we don't take a bribe - it's a shame for the state".
Well, if we are serious about algorithms, there can be a lot of them, as the market model cannot be described by one, even a very complex algorithm.
Therefore, the reflection of the regularity is a multimodel (a growing grouping of robots, where each robot is a relatively simple model of market dynamics).
We are not poor and not greedy, and "we don't take a bribe - it's a shame for the state".
Well, if we are serious about algorithms, there can be many of them, as a market model cannot be described by one, even a very complex algorithm.
Therefore, the reflection of the regularity is a multimodel (a growing grouping of robots, where each robot is a relatively simple model of market dynamics).
I will tell you an anecdote, but do not take it personally.
Chukcha comes to a publisher, brings a novel. The publisher leafs through it and says: "It is pale and inexpressive. Have you read Tolstoy, Dostoevsky?"
Chukcha: "However, Chukcha is not a reader, Chukcha is a writer!"
We are not poor and not greedy, and "we don't take a bribe - it's a shame for the state".
Well, if we are serious about algorithms, there can be many of them, as a market model cannot be described by one, even a very complex algorithm.
Therefore, the reflection of the regularity is a multimodel (a growing grouping of robots, where each robot is a relatively simple model of market dynamics).
"There are no good "mechanical systems" tofollow even at this level/beginner level/. Inmy opinion, there has never been a successful "mechanical" system described by a linearmodel atall. It does not exist now and in all likelihoodnever will, even with theuse of artificial intelligence, analogue processors, genetic algorithms, orthogonal regressions and neural networks."
In 25 years you suggest looking for a pattern by building up a grouping of simple robots. And you say you're sorry for your country.
In 1995 B.Williams in his book "Trading Chaos" wrote
"There are no good "mechanical systems"that can be followed even at this level/beginner's level. Inmy opinion, there has never been a successful "mechanical" system described by a linearmodel atall. It does not exist now and in all likelihoodnever will, even with theuse of artificial intelligence, analogue processors, genetic algorithms, orthogonal regressions and neural networks."
In 25 years you suggest looking for a pattern by building up a grouping of simple robots. You're saying you're sorry for your country
You operate with the concepts of 25 years ago, and anecdotes about Chukcha are "out of fashion".
Traditional thechanalysis (including Williams') is hopelessly outdated because in any science there is an elementary structure that can be fully relied on in the analysis of the process (atom in physics, molecules in chemistry, etc.), but in traditional TA there is nothing like that (TA figures appear with a gap in time, Elliott waves are identified ambiguously, also about trends - how many traders, so many different variants, etc.). There is a lot of information on this topic. At the same time, Williams' strong point is fractals.
You, like Williams, are right that there is no successful mechanical system in the sense that it will never be possible to create a universal model of price dynamics. You can only approximate it with a certain accuracy and then only at certain moments of time. The reasons are as follows:
- the process is very complex - non-stationary - both the amplitude (and therefore the scale) and frequency of price impulses are constantly changing,
- the robots do not take into account fundamental analysis (and this is the most important factor in changing price dynamics, news background can be algorithmically taken into account, but this is only a part of the iceberg),
- the algorithm of one robot is an extremely simple (and therefore very inaccurate) dynamic model.
Therefore, the only way to somehow get closer to the real, actual at the moment dynamics is a single set of different "slices of market dynamics", i.e. grouping of relatively simple models (robots working in parallel and independently).
-
You are operating with the concepts of 25 years ago, and anecdotes about Chukchu are no longer "in fashion".
-
" You can become asuccessful businessmanonly when you enrichyour memory with the knowledge of all the riches that mankind has developed", to paraphrase Lenin, taking into account the current realities. I'm talking about the obsolescence of concepts.
I did not come to this site to argue with you or anyone else. I have my own view of the market, based on the philosophy of the Pythagoreans. There is no big mystery in it (in philosophy), it is accessible to everyone, but not everyone can understand it - the problem is not even in an individual person, but in mass consciousness based on materialism.
That is why it is not interesting to talk about the build-up of robots, frankly speaking. If someone is interested in the foundations, the basics of the market, then it's a different matter, we can talk.
And market modelling is the main task in the development of analytical and trading systems. After all, any robot is a certain model of market dynamics.
Now, the obsolescence of concepts is a normal, natural process in any field, including technical analysis.
And new knowledge is always built on the basis, the foundation of previous knowledge, not rejecting everything, but only the outdated part of this foundation.
And I agree with you that " you can become asuccessful businessmanonly when you enrichyour memory with the knowledge of all those riches that mankind has developed".
I would only add - and when you are able to absorb new things.
I would only add - and when able to absorb new things.
So far I haven't caught a new thought from you, not even a hint.
And no wonder! You, I quote:"have your own vision of the market, based on the philosophy of Pythagoreans. There is no big secret in it (in philosophy), it is accessible to everyone, but not everyone can understand it... " .