|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Trade Jack wrote:
> yes and when played before world class orchestra conductors, they
> declared these pieces as "fake." why? 'cause they lacked the
> composers "soul" or "creative genius."
I never heard that, but I suppose it's possible.
Tim Morge wrote:
> There are hundreds of good architects now days that have studied
> Frank Lloyd Wright and can turn out homes and building that are
> 'perfectly' his style. If the homes were aged after they were
> built, they would 'be' Frank LLoyd Wright creations. But can you
> write a program that has the creativity that Frank LLoyd Wright
> has? Or Mozart?
I doubt anyone knows how to do that -- yet, anyway. But is it
necessary? Do you have to build a bird in order to fly? Is it
necessary to create a genius trader in order to trade successfully?
I would think it's sufficient to create a "really smart" trader.
Certainly there are plenty of very successful traders out there who
aren't Mozarts of the markets.
Tim, your point about adapting to changing market conditions is very
well taken. I honestly don't know if it takes "creativity" a la
Mozart or FLWright in order to trade in changing conditions
successfully. I suspect it doesn't, but that's my opinion. But
nothing says that a program HAS to be fixed and unchanging. It's not
all that difficult to write programs that close the feedback loop, so
they observe the current conditions AND the success of their recent
efforts, and modify their behavior accordingly. I believe a program
like that could do quite well in nearly any market conditions -- at
least as well as a good human trader.
And even if that's not possible, who says the program has to figure
it out by itself? What's wrong with using the program as an "expert
advisor," but also feeding it relevant information that might not be
programmed into it, helping it to adapt to current conditions? I'd
be perfectly happy to use a program like that.
In any case, most of this is conjecture. And I think we've probably
beaten this horse long enough. :-)
Gary
|