Quote from steve46:
Well, there are certain advantages to mechanizing a well developed rule set;
1. The program always follows the rules
2. The program doesn't "sleep in" or "miss signals"
3, The program can trade multiple markets concurrently
these advantages are undeniable, and as a result, when the program is well thought out and an edge exists, programs can't be beat.
Unfortunately, these conditions (well developed, robust, with a verifiable edge) are almost never found all together. Most programmers do not understand or know how to find a true statistical edge. Instead they often develop a system based on historical tendency. That is why almost all systems do well at times, and poorly at other times. Also (of course) it is true that some statistical edges are unstable.
While good programming offers the advantages that I have suggested, one has to realize that most programs will not adapt or change to a changing market condition. Instead the programs simply stop being profitable. In contrast, a good discretionary trader can adapt on the fly, and take advantage of changes in a market. Also a good discretionary trader can do other things that a program (usually) cannot, including modifying position size, stop loss, and (when necessary) standing aside when market conditions are adverse. Admittedly, these are limitations of the programmer not the technology.
The comment that trend following does not work for indexes was offered without much thought, and unfortunately it was mis-interpreted by the poster. Mr. LeBeau was commenting on a specific type of trend following known as the "Turtle System". Although many of you throw around the term "Turtle System", few of you really know in detail, what the system requirements were. In point of fact, I use trend following as an important part of my own intraday system, and as of yesterday, it was still working pretty well. I do not use the "Turtle System".
Good Luck Meatpuppets
Steve