Discussion of article "Random Forests Predict Trends" - page 5
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 have not and I do not see the point, since the model should be built on predictors that have the predictive ability to predict different classes. It is this property of predictors that will guarantee the model from overtraining (overfitting). The article and the book pile everything together. It is necessary to clean predictors, build a model and test it in MT4.
I beg to disagree with this position. The ultimate goal of spending time on research is to make a profit.
Let's solve the problem step by step.
First, let's learn to use very complex models as black boxes. In the article - 1 single model, in the book - 6 models. Let's learn how to evaluate them. With my works I demonstrate that very complex models can be used like a car: we drive, but we don't create or even repair them. And then let's deal with a much more difficult task - selection of input data for models. The right predictors + model = profit. And any of the parts will not yield profit. In terms of labour costs, the selection of predictors is up to 70% of the cost of creating a trading system. If you managed to find the predictors. And if not - the depo is guaranteed to be drained.
gpwr:
A сами пользуетесь этими методами в торговле? И каковы результаты? Я серьёзно, намекните хотя бы на результат. Например, зработал достаточно что книги писать не нужно, купил виллу в Ниццах или Багамах и теперь отдыхаю, филантропством занимаюсь, раздаю книги забесплатно.
Many people expect to be given a key to the flat where the money is.
They try to explain to you how to create a fishing rod that will help you catch fish. But if a man is not a fisherman, give him any rod and he will catch nothing. Your belief that if you are given a super rod you will become a super fisherman is deeply mistaken.
And no one will prove, show or hint to you. Who wants to learn - learns, who wants to want - waits.
Good luck to you in your hopeless endeavour.
Let's tackle the problem in stages.
First let's learn to use very complex models as black boxes. In the article - 1 single model, in the book - 6 models. Let's learn how to evaluate them. With my works I demonstrate that very complex models can be used like a car: we drive, but we don't create or even repair them. And then let's deal with a much more difficult task - selection of input data for models. The right predictors + model = profit. And any of the parts will not yield profit. In terms of labour costs, the selection of predictors is up to 70% of the cost of creating a trading system. If you managed to find the predictors. And if not - the depo is guaranteed to be drained.
This is pure chatter. The man is not asking to give him the money earned by the author with his model or models, he is asking to show him that the rod, the drawing of which is shown to him, can really catch fish.
Otherwise, the time spent on its construction will simply be thrown to the wind
This is pure chatter. The man is not asking to give him the money earned by the author with his model or models, he is asking to show him that the rod, the drawing of which is shown to him, can really catch fish.
Otherwise, the time spent on its construction will simply be thrown to the wind
My book - for the beginner will give the opportunity to formulate the problem. For an experienced TA trader - to test his ideas at a high level very quickly and at a low cost. And for both of them the book shows ways, though different for these categories of people, to get a workable EA.
And you can't grow yours from my skill.
PS.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the approach, look at the article under discussion. Metaquotes has posted it for free for everyone.
PSPS. Everyone who bought it is very satisfied, a completely unexpected view, and very close to TA. Only the patterns are looked for automatically, not by eye.
vlad1949:
Many people expect to be given a key to the flat where the money is.
They try to explain to you how to create a fishing rod that will help you catch fish. But if a man is not a fisherman, give him any rod and he will catch nothing. Your belief that if you are given a super rod you will become a super fisherman is deeply mistaken.
And no one will prove, show or hint to you. Who wants to learn - learns, who wants to want - waits.
Good luck to you in your hopeless endeavour.
I'm a lifelong learner, and I learn a lot. I have little time for everything, so I only learn what is useful or interesting. In this case, I see neither interest nor usefulness for me. So I will not waste my time studying this model.
I looked at your profile. You could quite well put Rattle, compare kNN with models from it and very informative justify your point of view.
But. Instead of that.
I come here to chat
I.e. you openly, without shyness declare that your purpose is usual, ordinary flud........
PS.
Having tried 6 models from Rattle, knowing kNN and a number of other models, I can assure you that random scaffolding is an extremely useful model, but you will have to spend some time before you can understand "what is interesting and what is useful".
I'm a lifelong learner, and I learn a lot. I have little time for everything, so I only learn what is useful or interesting. In this case, I see neither interest nor usefulness for me. So I will not waste my time studying this model.
I looked at your profile. You could quite well put Rattle, compare kNN with models from it and very informative justify your point of view.
But. Instead of that.
I come here to chat
I.e. you openly, without shyness declare that your purpose is usual, ordinary flud........
PS.
Having tried 6 models from Rattle, knowing kNN and a number of other models, I can assure you that random scaffolding is an extremely useful model, but you will have to spend some time before you can understand "what is interesting and what is useful".
No, not ordinary flud, but flud on the topic and in order to increase the quality of articles on this forum. Otherwise, they write chapters from books on modelling various processes not related to the market, and leave their applicability to the market for the reader to check. I declare with authority that all these methods are not applicable to the market. I have already proved it myself. And those who write articles and books without such proofs have one goal: to earn credits. There are two types of participants on the market: those who try to earn by trading and those who try to earn by teaching the first ones how to trade and earn on the market without having any successful experience in trading. The latter annoy me, especially when they authoritatively try to sell you either an unproven model or a proven model, but not suitable for the market, and give homework to the readers to check it themselves. They say that we are teachers and you students are oaks, go and check our theories.
You're wrong, gpwr.
In my opinion, the purpose of any article is to arouse interest in a topic, subject, field of knowledge.... most readers want to get a ready-made, universal solution here and now, with little or no effort. faa1947 writes about prediction and classification methods, which is very rare on this resource....
If you argue, then argue in a reasoned manner. For example, presenting your model or its parameters...
It is unconstructive to poke at the fact that "I checked it, it didn't work, show me your successful version"....