I don't think we have a way of knowing the probability of that happening to us. And whether it's likely or not, being on the safe side won't hurt. I'll devote my time to it, once I'll feel I have a capital and a system to protect. Most likely, when that'll happen, I will also have a lot of free time to dedicate to the complicated matter.
How long before you were fully automated?
- Thread starter travis
- Start date
Just dedicating a trading computer to be behind a white listing firewall solves most of the common problems. Beyond that it's a real engineering task, probably going to take two engineers a year to get me to where I'll need to be and so far, it's not a priority, I'm just ramping up semi auto trading.
Security is one area where you want to think very paranoically. It's worth it to explore the paranoiac thinking to it's fullest.. just don't let it leak into your real life too much of course
My computer that is whitelisted virtually never, ever, ever has so much as a hiccup or anything in it's operation. This one for surfing has odd things happening all the time.. I really think the unhandled security problems are more than the black listing industry lets on. I had Panda firewall running once, I dl'd prio to enhance the XP Task Manager and I discovered that with Panda firewall "protecting me" my machine was connected to two notorious hacker sites.. that was the tipping point for me, I had to go into the security thing in a big way...
jack,
Thank you for your post.
I am well aware of the inductive and deductive thinking. Seemingly, people are confused so here's a simple link to the difference...
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
Now...
1. Writing a list of "objects" that are involved in a trading process was mentioned as the first step for developing an automated trading framework. I am from the OO paradigm farm and I like to have all the list of objects involved in the process I am programming.
2. Developing trading models and testing is deductive thinking. You have a theory of how the market is doing, you code, test and confirm whether it is significant in some way. I agree with what you have mentioned.
This is how I personally deal with it and I don't expect an agreement but the overall task as a system developer requires both inductive and deductive thinking. I start developing and programming my framework inductively. I develop models deductively. As a package, it's about merging the 2 processes together to achieve a result.
Here's a question:
I just started developing a framework to read a text data file and display it on a DataGrid. Inductively, I think about all the components involved in the process. Components involved:
Text File. - The stored data.
FileReader. - An object that opens and reads the file.
TextDataConverter. - An object that converts the incoming byte character to the format you like.
DataTable. - Where you store the converted data.
DataGrid. - The window component that displays the stored data in the datatable.
How should the process of reading a text data be changed to a deductive process for programming? Please correct me if I'm thinking inefficiently.
PS. And your posts are very hard to read. When you write something, please think about who's reading them. Your style of writing tends to be "writing to yourself".
Personally, I think you misunderstood the intent and content of the post I've written. If this is the case, I apologize for not being clear enough.
Thank you for your post.
I am well aware of the inductive and deductive thinking. Seemingly, people are confused so here's a simple link to the difference...
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/dedind.php
Now...
1. Writing a list of "objects" that are involved in a trading process was mentioned as the first step for developing an automated trading framework. I am from the OO paradigm farm and I like to have all the list of objects involved in the process I am programming.
2. Developing trading models and testing is deductive thinking. You have a theory of how the market is doing, you code, test and confirm whether it is significant in some way. I agree with what you have mentioned.
This is how I personally deal with it and I don't expect an agreement but the overall task as a system developer requires both inductive and deductive thinking. I start developing and programming my framework inductively. I develop models deductively. As a package, it's about merging the 2 processes together to achieve a result.
Here's a question:
I just started developing a framework to read a text data file and display it on a DataGrid. Inductively, I think about all the components involved in the process. Components involved:
Text File. - The stored data.
FileReader. - An object that opens and reads the file.
TextDataConverter. - An object that converts the incoming byte character to the format you like.
DataTable. - Where you store the converted data.
DataGrid. - The window component that displays the stored data in the datatable.
How should the process of reading a text data be changed to a deductive process for programming? Please correct me if I'm thinking inefficiently.
PS. And your posts are very hard to read. When you write something, please think about who's reading them. Your style of writing tends to be "writing to yourself".
Personally, I think you misunderstood the intent and content of the post I've written. If this is the case, I apologize for not being clear enough.
I have no desire to rub anyone the wrong way. I'm sure everything works. A while back I did try to gain an understanding of script and snippets that could be used in a modular way.
Unfortunately, I left working before any programming got under way. For various reasons, today, using C# is the way those I subtend are going.
I have restraints backed by penalties.
The are several general facts and conditions that cannot be avoided.
1. Identifying and resolving flaws that are not in the conscious realm of others is difficult and time consuming.
2. The means of working from the theory to practice really requires that the coders are knowing and understanding.
3. Science is the cornerstone of theory of systems and Paradigm Theory is what give rigor to all systems.
As you say:
This thread is about automating a trading process. Meaning... this thread is about trying to code a framework to trade automatically.
1. I agree the process comes directly from its object: the market.
2. The process MUST be done within THE structure of the object.
3. The job which is the subject of the thread is to discover and prove THE STRUCTURE and THE PROCESS of the MARKET.
4. By OOP, it is possible to capitalize on the opportunity because of the BEAUTIFUL NATURE of 3.
5. You can do the job by involving the FRACTAL aspects of the BEAUTIFUL NATURE.
6. PROCESS IS WHAT PROVIDES THE TOOLING OF HOW THE OOP comes into play in an orderly manner.
The lists you provided that you say move from a beginning and then further on in doing the job never had a possibility of working to make the dicovery needed to manifest this REQUIRED STRUCTURE and PROCESS WITHIN THE STRUCTURE.
Instead an application of science is required. I know this is a paradigm shift from all of the work occupying various corporations and massive market pools of capital.
I will make the point simply.
We need electric cars and the cars do not need batteries to operate.
It is like Tesla and Edison fighting out car design.
Think of cars as light bulbs. i. e., electrical enegy consuming useful object for societies needs.
Tesla called the power company that ran a hydro plant. he needed 25,000KW rate of delivery to light a ring of light bulbs arranged in a 40 mile distant ring. An 80 mile diameter of operating distance for a thing such as a car.
The power plant did not listen and as a consequence got to rebuild its generators that blew out under overload as the bulbs tesla lit wirelessly on a 40 mile radius all lit up.
Here was one little guy using his idea (theory) of wireless electrical transmission. He did the job of building his idea and testing it. It worked.
his idea got partial use in WW II when 400 hundred three cycle power (by wires) was used in aircraft and ships to reduce the size of all things electric in the power application part of doing things with electricity.
He did want to waste the effort of wiring things that were used for power.
today you have a wireless cell phone. In a while you will have a wireless anything that you not plug into an outlet. And you can have a car.
In programming, there are similar possibilities for making money. It starts with a theory. The theory is applied by building a vehicle to use the theory.
Like Tesla and not like Edison, those who decide to go the Tesla route succeed and the Edison route failed.
A theory defines the STRUCTURE and PROCESSES of the object of harnessing the MARKET. Coding of the proper ilk (C#) fufills making money at the MARKETS offer.
Electric cars that use wirelessly transmitted alternating energy will be light weight very cheap and have capacitors as part of their construction.
Tesla and I look for the theory. You seem to be looking for data streams. Everyone else has been doing what you do. Data is plugged into theory; pragmatically, OOP and UML come into the picture after the STRUCTURE and PROCESS is put in place.
I speak from the viewpoint of making very high velocity big money.
Thank you for your post, jack.
You've answered the question I had to you. I have nothing to add. You are exactly correct with what you mention.
You've answered the question I had to you. I have nothing to add. You are exactly correct with what you mention.
Comparing yourself with Tesla, LOL. You couldn't carry his jock strap. That statement may be more insane than your claims to pull 3x the daily range out of the market daily.
You speak of it but you don't actually do it. You are pathetic.
Jack advised presidents, is up there with Tesla, is running a green revolution, was an explorer in the 30's, has an army of traders on twenty five exchanges world wide, master of NLP, there is probably a lot more I missed, that's just stuff I picked up from threads here in the last month or two... and now he has found this thread, great... he gives you two choices, either put him on ignore and go get a life or try to decipher the gibberish...
Well...
I agree that his posts are really hard to read. I sometimes think that he's using a Babel Fish or Google Translate for his posts. As you can see, it took me time to understand what he was writing about, ending up with rewriting my whole post. But it doesn't mean that the content itself is gibberish. He's using Tesla as an analogy to backup his ideas. He doesn't claim that he is genii like Tesla.
His posts are just hard to comprehend for an average brain like me.... Comprehension of the reader and the content of the post are 2 different things. And... we're really not discussing about how jack's posts are hard to read, are we???
The post I understood, about his beginnings, was very interesting. The rest I didn't understand, but I can tell by his first post that he's in good faith and not trying to sell us anything. So, if anything, those of us who don't understand should apologize for our ignorance.
It's true that he didn't simplify things enough for "us" newbies to understand, so some of us, rather than realizing their own limits, prefer to think it's all nonsense.
Also, if someone thought he was "pathetic", then he shouldn't say it as an insult, because by the dictionary it means that he "pities" him. If you "pity" someone, you should try to help him and not insult him, especially after he put all this time and effort into explaining his ideas.
Why can't you just write instead "I am skeptical about what you are saying, because..." and argue, respectfully, in more than just two lines?
It's true that he didn't simplify things enough for "us" newbies to understand, so some of us, rather than realizing their own limits, prefer to think it's all nonsense.
Also, if someone thought he was "pathetic", then he shouldn't say it as an insult, because by the dictionary it means that he "pities" him. If you "pity" someone, you should try to help him and not insult him, especially after he put all this time and effort into explaining his ideas.
Why can't you just write instead "I am skeptical about what you are saying, because..." and argue, respectfully, in more than just two lines?
Ha ha ha...
I got an E-mail personally saying,
"... I thought you knew about Probability Theory very well. How were you managing your models? ..."
Well, it's time to read a few books that I bought but never took time to read... as it says,
"Lacking the necessary theoretical principles, they force one to "choose a statistic" from intuition rather than from probability theory, and then to invent ad hoc devices (such as unbiased estimators, confidence intervals, tail-area significance tests) not contained in the rules of probability theory. Each of these is usable within a small domain for which it was invented but, as Cox's theorems guarantee, such arbitrary devices always generate inconsistencies or absurd results when applied to extreme cases; we shall see dozens of examples."
And personally declare myself as an "Amish Trader".
I got an E-mail personally saying,
"... I thought you knew about Probability Theory very well. How were you managing your models? ..."
Well, it's time to read a few books that I bought but never took time to read... as it says,
"Lacking the necessary theoretical principles, they force one to "choose a statistic" from intuition rather than from probability theory, and then to invent ad hoc devices (such as unbiased estimators, confidence intervals, tail-area significance tests) not contained in the rules of probability theory. Each of these is usable within a small domain for which it was invented but, as Cox's theorems guarantee, such arbitrary devices always generate inconsistencies or absurd results when applied to extreme cases; we shall see dozens of examples."
And personally declare myself as an "Amish Trader".