Search results

1. If a profitable automated system is being sold, that should be your red flag right there. It is probably useless, or has outlives its usefulness. 2. The reason a lot of people are skeptical about automated trading is because they simply don't understand what it entails. They think you...

The answer is: whatever the programmer is most comfortable with.

Stating whether a strategy is "high risk" or not is hardly "divulging" it.

Only true if you go it alone.

Matlab has a whole toolbox for curve-fitting. Can't say I have much experience with that toolbox, however.

It seems that, in the end, that is what the contest is. A viable real-life strategy would not win this contest, and the strategy that wins this contest would likely not be viable in the real world.

A lot depends on how you are planning to "learn" how to program. Academically? Do-it-yourself? Are you completely new to programming? Learning how to program, and learning to use different program languages are quite different issues. However, the catch is you have to learn how to...

Are you implying that the improvements you are working on now are non-algorithm related (i.e. infrastructure, money management, fail-safe mechanisms?). I ask this because if you are changing the algorithm, then the bot performing well now doesn't mean much for your future success. On the...

Only true if you're going it alone, which is already setting yourself up for a very difficult task to begin with.

Okay, I'll give it a shot: Both take time and money, I'm not sure why you're so quick to conclude that one is more effortful or money-consuming than the other. That's definitely not a given. Once you have a succesful strategy that you can trade manually, automating does NOT have to take...

Wow. I don't even know where to start. Technophobia at it's finest.

I think it may make such operations easier for the programmer since this functionality is built in and since it is a scripting language, but without checking, I would guess that any and all such vector processing would be available to C and Java programmers in readily available libraries.

My impression from significant use of both languages is programming in MATLAB is easy for simple things, i.e. data manipulation, or other serial operations which involve heavy mathematics that I can handle with function calls only. I mean, you can use Matlab for complicated things, but then you...

Having used Matlab a lot for engineering purposes as well, my hesistance to use it for an ATS would be based not on speed concerns but due to it basically being a scripting/function-language that is not OO. For operations that are mostly serial in nature I can see it being "good enough", but I...

Possibly other 3rd party software, but not faster than an ATS written in C or C++ and <gasp> perhaps even Java.

That is correct. I don't know why I kept repeating negative correlation, probably because I've heard it used around here in this same context a lot. My engineering instinct was telling me that uncorrelated is the goal, but I chickened out ;)

Right, I would put that in the category of "roughly equivalent profitability", when taking into account the respective drawdowns. The general problem is just a risk/return tradeoff. The point I was trying to make is that the notion that the more negatively correlated systems, the better, is...

I don't see it being nearly that simple. Sure, if you have systems A and B, they show negative correlation and are roughly equivalent in terms of ROI, then sure, reduce your risk/drawdown and run both systems side-by-side. However, if system A is much more profitable than system B, and...

I disagree with this philosophy for two reasons. 1) Wild, unpredictable moves while you are in a position may hurt, but they can also go in your favor. If they move against your algorithm's current position, it is completely feasible to add some logic in to bail on the position once the...

Like I said in the original post, I wouldn't be a big fan of the system to begin with because of its equity curve, I'd prefer something quite a bit smoother.