From theory to practice. Part 2 - page 74
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
It's the same in closed ones. there is no direct benefit, so those who really have something to share only hint vaguely, while others bluff or outright beg in the hope of getting a piece of the pie.
Discussions on an equal footing are rare exceptions. So in essence, everywhere is the same - look for interesting people (rather than ideas and algorithms), and then as the case may be.
So it is. No one can offer you a grail, even the most mediocre one. Even if you practice on python. But discussing ideas, even in general terms, can be very productive. As long as it doesn't turn into a flame-flame and a chorus.
It turns out that already communicating with an AI forum can be more productive than a human one
phenomenally
Who do you think you're ignorant to, retard?
Learn to distinguish between potato beds and people first - then we'll talk.
It's easier to provoke you with meaningless insults than it is to get you to pay attention to the right things.
Don't you think that's something to think about?) After all, it should be the other way around.
It's easier to provoke you than to make you pay attention to the right things.
Don't you think that's something to think about?) I mean, it should be the other way around.
OK, I'll shut up now.
But for some reason, even today's discussion hasn't made anyone put the Grail stuff out in the public domain.
Maybe there isn't one?
Scary thought.
I'll catch up with you later.
It turns out that already communicating with an AI forum can be more productive than a human one
oddly enough, reversing can be used to confirm an alpha in the algorithm (a bit like putting a coin on the last side when you play a skewed coin)
and if the pattern is only slightly picked up by the algorithm, then turning it back on can improve the system's performance
oddly enough, reversing can be used to confirm an alpha in the algorithm (like putting on the last side of a coin when playing a skewed coin)
and if the pattern is only slightly picked up by the algorithm, then turning it back on can improve the system's performance
Interesting, I'll give it a try.
OK, I'll shut up now.
But somehow, even today's discussion didn't get anyone to post the Grail stuff to the public.
Maybe there isn't one.
Scary thought.
I'll check in with you later.
He's there))))))))
the same in the closed ones.
OK, I'll shut up now.
But somehow, even today's discussion didn't get anyone to post the Grail stuff to the public.
Maybe there isn't one.
Scary thought.
I'll check in with you later.
A grail is the exploitation of imperfections in the market system as a whole or in a particular structure. For example, if you get a direct connection to the liquidity provider, then you may receive the data several hundredths of a second faster than the broker. But they were rapidly outlawed, which was a shame.
And so it is possible, but it is not a rose grail, but computer vision, only very advanced, applicable only to 2D charts (and no, it is not beloved neuronet, but pure statistics and probability theory). I would call it that.
Here of course the question of testing in general in principle falls away, as testing is a priori wrong.
It's like when you see a cube, you see it as a whole at once (if it is lying in front of you and not covered with anything and if your eyesight is good, of course). It is the same with a robot. It sees everything at once, without any blunders and it is practically impossible to know if it sees correctly. This is a purely philosophical question.
In general there is a lot of everything. Too much.
But one thing's for sure - there's no such thing as miracles. There's no point in telling you the rest.
It's useless. Basically all.
<PS/>
"Scary thought." - And you are afraid simply because you do not have any strict axioms, which you once calculated, suffered and forgot to use further. Because there's nothing to rely on, there are no reliable fats, only theories, conjectures, hypotheses and something that is unclear if it works or not, and why it brings profit and loss. I told you back on page 687 (way back in 2017) of the last thread about things that still work in my systems (and it's not the first time I've told you about it). And I have no question if what my algorithms and my huge "mastodon" code are based on works. Start with the smallest thing, microscopically small. otherwise everything else is useless in principle.
I'm not trying to offend you in any way, I'm just explaining to you the reasons why you have such scary thoughts. That's all there is to it."Scary thought." - You are afraid simply because you do not have any strict axioms, which you once calculated, suffered and forgot to use further. Because you have nothing to rely on, there are no reliable fats, only theories, conjectures, hypotheses and something that is unclear if it works or not, and why it brings profit and loss. Back on page 687 of the previous thread I described things that are still working in my systems (and it's not the first time I'm telling you about it). And I don't have any question whether the things on which my algorithms and my huge "mastodon" code are based work. Start with the smallest thing, microscopically small. otherwise everything else is useless in principle.
You may be right. I won't argue until I've drained the account.