I wrote a bot and gave it 25k to trade

[931]

yup usa, its even more at the FAANG

Id rather try to get the "salery" trough their stock fluctuations , without directly working for FAANG.

 

[traider]

Id rather try to get the "salery" trough their stock fluctuations , without directly working for FAANG.

Its 300K to 500K for FAANG, you need tons of capital to generate that type of return annually.

 

[931]

Its 300K to 500K for FAANG, you need tons of capital to generate that type of return annually.

Im in my mid 20s atm and without 0.5m.
At least its good goal.
I didnot know they pay so well, maybe its >0.5m for the brightest devs consisting of <10% devs overall?
I have seen multiple people leave google to work on their own projects.

Here in Estonia 500k would equate to more than half lives work for average person but without living costs.

 

[zoned_post_meridiem]

I hope the first reaction after seeing the image was "codebase is here!

My first reaction was: he's holding back on that omp.h file, isn't he?!?
My second reaction was: thank god for python.

 

[_terminus_]

As for risk management, what is your philosophy about using stops/profit targets say vs ATR trailing stops or no stops with an indicator exit?

I have been backtesting a good deal with a variety of the above with mixed results. I agree with 931's position on optimization, it's too easy to curve fit with some of the software tools. I am thinking that more care in trade/money management is a better 80/20 use of system designer time.

I use stops, profit targets, trailing stops or time stops depending on the specific algo. I don't use hard stops, i.e. stop loss orders sitting on the broker's server. My system takes care of placing orders at the required time. Also, I'm only using market orders at the moment.

Regarding money management, it is an essential component of any system, but IMO you can't rely on it alone for success. You have to have some kind of edge. I have still to see any of those "random entry systems" produce other-than-random profits. I've done countless tests and never been able to produce a profitable system that relies on MM only, regardless of other conditions. Unless, of course, you work on a very specific and very directional data set: in such case B&H could work as well.

 

[_terminus_]

You may have answered this before, but do you work with profit taker/stop loss levels, or do you constantly move from long to short to long (e.g., buy above a certain level, then sell when it falls below, then buy when it goes above, etc.)?

See above.

My current algos treat all trades as independent events, meaning that none of the algos that I developed so far work as a reversal system, if that's what you mean.

 

[_terminus_]

IMO vaguely is: Core is based on custom pattern recognition algo, about 3k lines of code.

My current algo core is exactly 80 lines of commented C++ code, 5 entry conditions, 2 exit conditions, 15 constant numeric parameters. Standard indicators, plus one custom designed indicator for volatility.

 

[_terminus_]

As for programming languages:

Efficiency is a refined form of laziness.

Any good programmer is a lazy, mildly arrogant SOB.

RAD environments such as Python are not at odds with low level/high efficiency languages like C/C++. Any non trivial system tend to leverage on both aspects.

In my case, for example, the bulk of the system is built in MS Access (a RAD) whilst the trading, algo and broker communication part is relegated in a separate DLL. Any barely skilled programmer will try to write as much code as they can using a high level environment, limiting the effort of writing low level, critical code.

 

[userque]

Any good programmer is a lazy, mildly arrogant SOB.

We could start a thread on just this.

 

[931]

My current algo core is exactly 80 lines of commented C++ code, 5 entry conditions, 2 exit conditions, 15 constant numeric parameters. Standard indicators, plus one custom designed indicator for volatility.

The IBKR historical balance shows great output for 80 lines.

Based on the description i would guess its waiting for conditions where multiple indicators agree and then trigger entry/exit.

If that is not too far off , in your situation id hope its going to work similarly well on various instruments.
Might benefit alot, less drawdown, smoother growth etc.

If adding more indicators or rarer conditions and waiting for all to give signal same time it is less probable and less trades.
With more instruments it might be possible to set those bars higher.