Serious Question

[qlai]

Using this and then comparing it to price action easily enables one to profit almost continuously during RTH.

So you have given a thought to automating this but don't think it can be done? Sounds like best option even if performance might degrade.

 

[rb7]

Thanks guys. Actually, savings > 100,000 but I'm time constrained.

An edge that can't be automated, and that only works during RTH is not very flexible. Basically, you are either full time pro trader or not.

Have to be at your workstation pre-market, open, intra and close 5 days a week (plus homework). This is why you need more than starting capital (a lot more).

This edge makes me married to RTH more than I ever thought I would be. I used to think I'd just 'get good enough' and then It would be a convenient part time or full time deal. It turns out that it is the complete opposite. No point in doing anything else, certainly my $50,000 a year job is a joke comparatively.

Anything can be automated.
If you really cannot automated it, it means that you cannot reproduce it with clear instructions.

 

[wrbtrader]

Anything can be automated.
If you really cannot automated it, it means that you cannot reproduce it with clear instructions.

Not true about "anything" even with clear instructions.

Yet, some of the social media (e.g. twitter) algorithms being using by institutional trading firms is causing me to 2nd guess my opinions about not true for "anything".

wrbtrader

 

[rb7]

These idiots that are trying to make automated systems via algorithm and backtest/optimization have one thing in common. The don't understand the limitations of statistics.

Central Limit Theorem
Law of Large Numbers
Bayes Theorem
Gauss-Markov Theorem

The postulates of these theorems are not flexible. In other words, they think they are 'testing' algorithms and that they can just parameterize the market.

I'm not saying statistics isn't useful but you can't test things if your core assumptions are unsound.

Errors:

heteroskedasticity, compounded distributions

How about the Bilateral Symmetry Theorem?
Or the Dihybrid Cross Theory?
Or the Karyotype Law of Large Samples?

 

[rb7]

Not true about "anything" even with clear instructions.

Yet, some of the social media (e.g. twitter) algorithms being using by institutional trading firms is causing me to 2nd guess my opinions about not true for "anything".

wrbtrader

If you can repeat why you are taking a decision, then it can be automated.
If you cannot, think harder, unless you change your mind depending on your mood, and even in that case, if you can identify your mood...

 

[wrbtrader]

If you can repeat why you are taking a decision, then it can be automated.
If you cannot, think harder, unless you change your mind depending on your mood, and even in that case, if you can identify your mood...

Please setup a Short signal in the any index futures to only Short when Trump tweets about tariffs from his bedroom when his advisors are not present to occur on any day the FED Chairman has a speech.

I'm sure someone out there can do but most likely its not a trader nor someone working for a financial institution.

wrbtrader

 

[Option_Attack]

Heteroskedasticity

Thread has been reported for TOS language violations..

heteroskedasticity, compounded distributions

 

[BlueWaterSailor]

Heteroskedasticity

Thread has been reported for TOS language violations..

I will have you know I identify as one. None of your perverted homeostasis stuff for me, thank you very much.

 

[tommcginnis]

These idiots that are trying to make automated systems via algorithm and backtest/optimization have one thing in common. The don't understand the limitations of statistics.

Central Limit Theorem
Law of Large Numbers
Bayes Theorem
Gauss-Markov Theorem

The postulates of these theorems are not flexible. In other words, they think they are 'testing' algorithms and that they can just parameterize the market.

I'm not saying statistics isn't useful but you can't test things if your core assumptions are unsound.

Errors:

heteroskedasticity, compounded distributions

I have been pounding this drum for at least the past year. "Good on ya!!"

 

[tommcginnis]

Heteroskedasticity
Thread has been reported for TOS language violations..

I once caused a court reporter to crack up a *very* serious (read: "haughty") hearing room one time when, in the course of a response under cross, I used the term heteroskedasticity. Now, the regulatory community is rather small, so the judges, lawyers, *Court*reporters*, primary staffers -- all know each other. And all knew this gal to be a serious, sturdy professional. (And she could swear like a sailor, too -- so you never gave her any guff. Big farm girl. In a dress. Amy[!!] was her name.)

Well, the cross exam is going back and forth, back and forth -- like a verbal tennis match. I actually forget the subject, but it must've had something to do with forecasts, and errors were mentioned, and I described some part of my answer with "heteroskedasticity"....

No sooner did I get the word out than Amy tilts her head to look at me and out comes a loud "HhhHUH??" And she was always SO calm and always SO professional, and she stops the place cold and it *erupts* with laughter. I'mmmmm cracking up just thinking about it.

There were some chuckles (and a few groans) in that staid environment over the years, but none produced the raucous laughter of

"...heteroskedasticity..."
"HhhHUH??"