|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
What I see in your explanation is a point FOR
establishing firm, measurable rules (and if you want,
automate them). It sounds like the trader you are
describing is simply *reinventing the wheel* every
time he places a trade.
You described somebody thinking out loud and changing
his *first impression* while he is in the process.
Regardless of how he comes to a conclusion, his 8000
things will lead to either a bullish or bearish
outlook and the FINAL outlook is what counts (if you
buy and sell 100 shares you will have 0 risk, maybe
thats a good thing, who knows!).
If the exact same conditions present themselves and
the trader chooses to do the oposite we will be
looking at somebody who is inconsistant in their job.
Its *funny* how trading is one of the very few (if not
the only) discipline where people are actually proud
and brag of being inconsistent!
H
--- the_omega_man@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> At Thu, 02 Mar 2000 05:35:42 -0800, Bill Vedder
> <bved01@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Brian is correct. If properly stated, anything
> should be able to be
> >programmed. The "problem" is in properly stating
> and interpretting the
> rules or idea.
> > As far as programming the head and shoulders, just
> because you can't do
> it in
> >ezl, doesn't mean it can't be done. In fact, it
> has been done and research
> work
> >published about it.
>
>
> The fundamental difficulty, I've found, is what I
> refer to as the "perception"
> problem. Specifically, what do you do in the case
> in which the trader's
> highly profitable perception does not correlate well
> with the data he says
> he is using? Believe me, this is a real problem!
> What I'm referring to
> here is the case in which a trader's *perception
> changes* such that he interprets
> the *exact same* data in two (or more) different
> ways.
>
> I think that this is what some people refer to as
> "intuition", but it goes
> beyond my concept of "intuition" in that it can
> change in an *unpredictable*
> manner.
>
> A simple example: Trader says, "I would go long
> here". Programmer asks,
> "Why?". Trader gives a long and detailed
> explanation of 8000 things which
> have happened over the course of the last 50 years
> to lead to this current
> long. (No kidding.) Before the trader finishes
> explaining his current
> long, he is saying, "I would sell here." Programmer
> asks: "Why?" Trader
> gives the *exact same* list of 8000 reasons for his
> current short as he
> gave for the long he took a few minutes earlier!
>
> To summarize, programming is a *means*, not an
> *end*. It is to be used,
> *where it makes sense* to use it - specifically,
> where it reduces work
> through automation. If it would be more work to
> automate a trader's method
> than it is to just let the guy trade it, then
> programming makes no sense.
>
>
> Also, there is the case of the *randomly changing*
> trader perception which
> is not codable. How do you program to trade the
> *exact same* data in two
> different ways?
>
>
> Good trading,
>
> OM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|