Here is a quote (21SEP08) about the middle of the process for creating ATS's by any means.
"If you have the analysis, design, and architecture skills for software development, then you need to leverage those to build your strategy."
There is a choice of what to analyze. That has been made by many people in the software business.
Personally, I have been through several dsciplines and in each case I followed a scientific approach and gradually turned to the pragmatic aspects often expressed as engineeering modelling and development.
Here is this thread the forex isbeing used and a Price Action model has emerged and now the analysis, design and architecture is being spun out of a software approach previously articulated.
A crossover has occured at the advanced beginner level where on one hand smart volume generated about a hundred pips (21 trades) and traverses (SCT) generated (in zig zag lingo) about 250 pips (46 trades).
I put up an NB (a Latin expression I am used to) to show the situation (dilemma for smart volume in my terms and logic of thought).
The answers to the questions of the NB are that smart volume (which by testing is one level faster than traverses) was showing up much less grequently than traverse when the logical ratio is 3:1 for the tape level compared to the traverse level.
What is the analysis on this failing? Zigzag software is very common and has many uses. Here it verified that the smart volume was non functional just as the annotated traverse trading at advanced beginner did.
The analysis of the forex that became the basis of the present product Is ststed to have more or less cut to the chase by focusing on non price indicators and using a "model" of the zigzag to checkout the design and architecture of the so far "How to build an ATS" the topic of the thread.
A beginner ATS could feed an advanced beginner ATS. ETC, ETC,
Any ATS uses a routine. There are many routines the most common and which is being used by Wayne is the OODA routine. A rotine which he fels will self correct the software operations to take into account the missed or different heart beats of....."the market". I am familiar with changing one's heat beat for various practice and exercise routines. Short or long term.
It is good to give consideration to effectiveness and efficiency when advancing the performance of an ATS.
Here at this point we are way past the backtesting of an assortment of testers and their "minions".
we have a smart volume at a levle of 100 pips and the zigzag at 250 pips and advanced beginer running above the zig zag and the smart volume ; all on forex using 100 tics as a price action orientation.
I will post two charts (Illustration 20 and 21) to show the MADA routine as an alternative in ATS analysis, design and architecture. This requires returning to an architecture orientation where "states" are involved in the work.
First the"knowledge illustration" (illustration 20). Records in the ATS provide the knowledge; think of knowledge as the factual languaged characterization of what is what. Records are created by using functions which process incoming data. Records are used as subsequent functions, look up tables, and values for go/no go comparisons.
Thoughout, there is a requirement to use binary vectors whose basis is founded in information theory where certainty and sufficiency are wholly addressed. No departures are ever permitted.
Secondly, there is a go/no go finite basis (five elements) for "participation" in trading. Computers participate as partners with the market. (so do mechanical traders at various levels using SCT). Here decisions and actions of MADA happen. The D's and A's are annotated for each level. Note that the current design of the "build an automated system" by the OP is somewhere between beginner and advanced beginer and it is using inputs from two as yet undiagrammed (time constraints) analysis, desing and architecture tchniques.
Illustrations 1 through 7 previously explained the why's how's and what's I used to get to the record producing configurations I used throughout.
Now, after many years here and before that on the web sites and through email before the web and in meetings for 30 years before emails, we (meaning the reader and me) get to mutually understand the differences in how algorithms may be used to make money. we are comparing CW with pool extraction on a logical, mathematical and intellectual basis. And on a peformance and "just what is possible basis".
This post and two illustrations make a large and global point.
Logic that is certainty based is the only way to extract the offer. Why is the true and non inductive. Here we are contrasting an inductive approach with a non inductive approach. (NB: I'm the non inductive one).
The market's operating point moves as a migration and not as "changes in heart beats". A system must be able to detect how migration works on all levels of sensitivity and with certainty at all times.
The detectors of this miagration are on the illustrations which were drawn from the text of the journals. Many many observers can quote chapter and verse of where this information was laid out, thoroughly developed and Q and A'ed over four years.
8, 9 and 10 are the foundation.
11 and 12 provide the operating space of price and volume.
13 and 14 allow the trader (ATS) "participate".
We see that the simplest (smart volume of the OP) makes 1.5 ATR in half a day. We see that the Advanced beginner makes more that 2 and 1/2 times the 1.5 times ATR in half a day.
Were the SCT to have been pursued as an ATS (it is not possible to use a CW orientation (induction orientation) to analyze, design and architect an algorithm that is non inductive), then we would have seen to point of this thread fomr my point of view.
That is this: a foundation must be built first, upon the foundation more can be done by building level by level and always completing a level before beginning another.
Smart money is not available except by going the smart money at the right place and the right time. The failure to understand this has been exhibited quite Well for a couple of days.
What takes an ATS to the right place are building blocks laid below the right place. What takes an ATS there at the right time is building blocks below the right place.
The heirarchy of locus could have been part of the design and acrchitecture; for a moment before it was discarded it appeared. Smart money is in a place and has terrific utility at the right time. when used at any othr place and time it is possible that what was there was just a decoy. What comes just before (in time) smart money, is the non inductive measure of WWT (WWT stands for What Wasn't That). In trading and especially on the DOM in any market anywhere in the world, there are games played simply because "tells" can be shown on the DOM. I spoke of four common games many times.
So it all comes down to a point. Binary vectors provide the non inductive process that enables a systematization on many levels (6 to8) where a "steer and focus" is done by a gating process that is gated under certainty by sufficiency.
<img src="http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2082834" width=800>